The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1916-10-12
PUBLISHING NOTICES
TO Be ON SAFE SIDE
Many Soft Drink Dispensers Follow
Same Lines As Provided for Drug
gtnsts' license Applications.
MIR. POLLARD DENIES OPINION
Complaint Made by j. Singleton Digg $.
of Lynchburg, Causes Attorney
General to Point to Distinction Be-
tween Druggists and Soft Drink
Notices.


censes sent The Virginian by J. Sim
gleton Digs, of Lynchburg. Attorney
General John Garland Pollard said:
The Attorney General has given no
such opinion as that complained of
by Mr. Diggs."
The attorney-general has been quot
cd throughout the State as having
given 1t as his opinion that dispensers
or soft drinks are required by the
provisions of the prohibition law to
file notice Of their intention to apply
for license to continue the sale OF
soft drinks after November l in the
application for license to handle ar
dent spirits. Many of the soft drink
men have filed and published notices
in conformity with the laws provis-
ions. but thore are others who deem
unnecessary the giving Of such notice
in the form and manner as prescribed
for druggists.
Mr. Pollard. declaring that he has
not given such opinion MS 1t has been
pretty generally understood through
out the State that he had, makes APP
and advice.
Similar Notice Safer.
While Mr.. Pollard feels that II is
not absolutely necessary for soft
drink dealers to follow the procedure
specified in the act for druggists, he
advises that to be on the safe side.
1t may be well for soft drink dispens-
ers to give notice similar to that re-
qutred of druggists.
1t may be that the judges OF the
courts, before whom applications for
licenses are to be heard, and In whose
discretion Is said to be the fixing Of
hA nnrip L. L. 1t.
notice of application must be given.
will be not uniform In their decisions
II Is possible that some OF the judges
may deem the filing OF notice by soft
drink dispensers before the hearing
date with the clerk OF the court to
be sufficient. Some may require wild
er notice to be given. Where one
Judge may say that the giving of no
tice of application for license ten days
before the hearing date will be in
keeping with the intent of the law,
another may hold differently. fixing
the period at fewer or more days.
Mr.. Diggs' Communication.
The communication of Mr.. Digs
reads as follows:
Editor Virginian:
The press has given to the public
the opinions OF thu prohibition COM
missioner, the attorney general and
the States Legal Department"
Whatever that may be-. all con-
curing in the view that the general
prohibition statute requires applicants
for soft drinks licenses TO post notices
and make publication In the news
paper once a week for three consecu-
tive weeks, prior to making applica-
ton to the court.
An Opposing View.
As this opinion. II followed will i'm
pose an expense upon the soft drink
dealers which in the aggreg gate will
amount 10 a considerable sum, and
produce other difficulties. the matter
Is of sufficient Importance to justify
the publication of an opposing view, 1t
Is respectfully submitted that the
statute does not require anything of
the sort. 1t does not require the appli-
cant for soft drink license 10 post
any public notice anywhere. nor to
incur the expense Of advertising in a
newspaper for any period of time, nor
in any other way to notify the world
or his intention to engage in that in
nocent line of business
The whole Of the law defining the
meaning of soft drinks" and re-
curing a-l4ceRsa- of the dealer there
in. Is found in Sections 64-A and GA
OF Chapter LAG, Acts Of 1915. These
sections define the term soft drinks"
declare 1t to be 'unla wful for any
person to dispense soft drinks without
first obtaining a license to do SO from
the Circuit or Corporation Court" al
lows any citizen to appear in opposi-
ton TO the granting of such license.
and provides the penalty for any per
SON violating any provision of This
Section Of This Act but there Is not
a word Cyl
notice or newspaper publication as be-
ing necessary before application is
made for the license; certain it is that
no such prior requisite to the court 8
granting the license can be implied
from the fact that notice and publica-
ton Is required Of a druggist, hotel
keeper and hospital. On the contrary.
the Implication is Just the reverse
for in each one OF those cases. all of
which are dealt with in Section IA of
the Act. the requirement OF notice and
publication is expressly and plainly
written in the law in respect to each
Of these three licenses, while all re-
ference to notice and publication is
expressly and plainly omitted in the
Section 81 dealing solely with soft
drinks.
A Modern Innovation.
The law .aking power has provided
for notice and publication in respect
or applications for certain licenses
specified and limited in Section IA. and
then dealing with all sorts of matters
and things in the so sections follow
ing. comes in the 6ith section to deal
ing with different sort of license, for
a business which never before re-
quired any court license. and simply
requires that a license be obtained
from the court Manfestly the Legis-
lature, differing in It's wisdom from
the prohibition commissioner and the
attorney general. deemed ii wholly UNI
necessarw and unreasonable to put
upon every operator of a soda foun-
tain and every peddler of pop bottles
the hitherto unheard- Of requirement
OF a thirty-day notice and advertise
ment in a newspaper.
From time imfnemoriai the law and
the practice has been that licenses
which require the consent of court.
were issued upon mere motion with =