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.

Forth Facts In Case.
Editor Union City Commercial
Union City, Tenn.-My dear sir:
am handing you herewith an article
relating to House Bill No. 701, com
imonly known as the Druggists
Bill" passed by the Legislature just
before its adjournment.
The article is an effort to show
that the Druggists Bill" is really
an advanced step toward final and
complete prohibition in the State of
Tennessee, and as such, deserves the
support and commendation of the
prohibition people of the State. The
patron of the bill, Mr.. G. r. McDade,
labored very earnestly for its pass
age and is likewise deserving of the
commendation and support of the
people of his district for his efforts
on this bill, as we'll as his labor for
other prohibition measures. l am
also enclosing you copy Of the bill,
just as it finally passed the Legisla-
ture
I trust you will be able to give
space to this article in your paper
and that you will kindly enclose me
copy of the same. I shall also be
glad to endeavor to answer any
questions, which may suggest them
selves to any fairminded citizen, in
terested in effective prohibition
laws.
Very cordially and sincerely yours,
J. D. McALISTER, Supt.
Nashville, April 19, 1915.
The Editor of The Union City
Commercial, Union City, Tenn
Dear sir: I have been handed an
editorial, printed in your paper, un-
der the caption "The Druggist BILL"
the same being some structures on
the measure passed by the Legisla-
ture before the recess, known as
House Bill Number 701 and entitled,
AL dCC W plOulDlI CuC odlC, phl ISl'
distribution or giving away of al
cohol or intoxicating liquors by
druggists, except on prescription to
a bona fide patient by registered
physician, dentist, or veterinary sur
geon or on sworn order for pharma-
ceutical, scientific or sacramental
purposes, and to provide ways and
means for the enforcement of this
Act and penalties for violation
thereof"
The criticism upon the bill in the
editorial is based upon a misappre-
hension of the purport of this bill,
and also of the Four Mile Law. If
you will take the trouble to examine
the Four Mile Law, you will notice
that the enacting section reads as
follows:
Section 1. Be it enacted by the
General Assembly Of the State of
Tennessee, That it shall not here
after be lawful for any person to
sell or tipple any intoxicating liq-
Iors, Including wine, ale and beer,
Us a beverage, public or private,
where school is kept, whether the
school be then in session or not, in
his State, and anyone violating the
provisions of this Act shall be guilty
If misdemeanor, etc., etc." The
emphasis in the above quotation,
rom the Four Mile Law, and taken
n connection with the Drug Store 7
Bill is to be laid upon the words GAS r
beverage''-in other words the {
FOUR Mile Law only prohibits the r
ale of intoxicating liquors as bev- 3
rage within four miles of any i
There is no law on the statute =
ooks that prohibits a physician,
eterinary surgeon or dentist, from +
living prescription for intoxi F
ating liquors, or any restriction up /
n the number of prescriptions, or
he amount which may be pre-
cribed. If they so choose, a physi
ian can prescribe quart of whis
ey for the ear ache, dentist can
rescribe gallon of whiskey for the
both ache, veterinary surgeon can q
rescribe a barrel to drench horse, II
nd there is no law prohibiting the T.
ling of these prescriptions by a n
ruggist. There is no law against, o
or restriction upon, druggist sell 81
lg barrel of wine for sacramental a
The State only requires d
lat druggists, selling intoxicating Il
quors upon prescription, shall pay
$1.500 revenue tax. The Four ;,
lie Law says. "No one shall sell in :,
liquors as a beverage :,
thin four miles of any school .,
ouse;' the druggist says, IT will :,
IT sell liquors as a havara pe hl1t as