The commercial. (Union City, Tenn.) 190?-193?, 1915-04-23
STATEWIDE LAWS DO NOT
PROHIBIT PRESCRIPTIONS
Letter form J. D. McAlister Setting
Forth Facts In Case.

Hon. G. r. McDade, State Capitol
Nashville, Tenn.-Dear Mr.. McDade
hand you herewith the proposed
amendments to the Drug Store Bill
and the caption as 1t would have t.
be amended to fit the amendments
and the body of the bill as it woult
read with the amended caption ant
the amendments to the body of the
bill.
Also find enclosed statement, as
per your request, to be placed In
your files. I am not only willing tt
give you this statement, but if need
be to travel your district and justify
you in the support and passage oil
this measure and to assume the re-
sponsibility for the merits and de-
merits of same.
very much hope we shall be able
to get this bill and the Club Bill
through the House this week.
Very cordially and sincerely yours,
j. d. McALISTER, Supt.
Nashville, Tenn, March 80, 1915.
Hon. G. R. McDade. Nashville,
Tenn.-My dear sir: l submit here
with a statement of fact in connec-
ton with House Bill No. 701, (if I
am not mistaken in the number)
Senate Bill No. 2S5, commonly
termed Drug Store Bill, which is
an act to prohibit the sale barter
and distribution of intoxicating liQ-
uors by drug stores, etc.
First, Present conditions. Any
druggist in the State who will pay
a revenue license. amounting to
$500, is privileged to sell intoxi-
eating liquors upon prescription
from a physician. With this reve-
nue. tax paid there is no limit upon
the prescription business. A drug
gist can fill as many prescriptions
for intoxicating liquors, and for any
amount, from any and all persons
who may present said prescriptions
Neither are there any restrictions
laid upon physicians in the giving
of such prescriptions. They may
give as many as they please to the
same person for any quality.
The revenue tax is so large that
it practically prohibits country
druggists and druggists in the
smaller towns from paying the tax
and securing authority to sell upon
prescription, and the honest drug
gist in the city cannot afford to
pay the tax and do legitimate pre-
scription business; consequently
throughout the country generally
there are no drug stores which pay
this tax and sell on prescription, and
the impression is abroad that they
cannot do so under the Four Mile
Law, which impression is incorrect.
But in the cities a few druggists,
some of them ex-saioon keepers, can,
by reason of the large population,
afford to pay S1,500 revenue tax and
secure a monopoly on the prescrip-
ton liquor business, and, under the
cover of the prescription business
sell immense quantities of liquor, in
direct violation of the spirit and let
ter of the prohibition law.
Second. The proposed bill, which
you have in hand. is, designed to
remedy these conditions.
(a) BY leaving the revenue law
Just as it stands so that no larger
liberty will be given to regular and
reputable drug stores to sell intoxi
eating liquors.
OBJ By throwing such restraints
around physicians and druggists whC
pay the TX, as would subject then
TO severe penalties, if they should
violate the prohibition law.
(c) Said restrictions, taken il
connection with the revenue law
would put the drug store bootlegge
out OF business. IN tue MedHtAm
the reputable druggists could con
tinue to sell alcohol for domestic AM
wine for sacramentai purposes, a
heretofore. under the restrictions o
this proposed ACT"
Third, The Bill outlined
Section /, defines che terms physi
clan, druggists and persons for TIL
uses of this Act
Section 2, makes It unlawful TO
a druggist to fll prescription, IN
less given by a regularly licenses
physician under the laws Of Tennes
see, to q patient whom he shall per
sonally attend; said prescription
must be dated on DAY when written
filed within three days after dat
on which it is written and canno
be filed the second time. Section
further provides that no druggis
shall carry in stock amount Of in
toxicaung lIquors for more than one
Per cent Of his entire stock
Section 3. provides that aleoholis