New Ulm review. (New Ulm, Brown County, Minn.) 1892-1961, 1921-04-13
NEAR BEER SALE
LAW VIOLATION.
MORE GRIEF FOR OWNERS OF
SOFT DRINK PARLoRs
IN MINNESOTA.

SOFT DRINK PARLORS
IN MINNESOTA.
MALT LIQUORS CAN BE SOLD
ONLY IN SALOONS, SAYS
A NEW RULING.
According to ruling made by At
torney General Clifford l.. Hilton at
the request Of Arthur Markve, as
sistant county attorney OF Hennepin
county, the. sale Of near beer and
other notwithstanding malt beverages
at present dispensed freely in soft
drink parlors, ice cream parlors, res
taurants, groceries and other places, is
illegal. Attorney Markve has charge
Of prosecuting abatement proceedings
against places where intoxicating
liquors are sold and against disorderly
houses in Minneapolis, and desired to
obtain a ruling from the attorney
general as to his opinion relative to the
Minnesota prohibition statute. @
Provision Not Repealed.
In his notation to Attorney Markve,
Attorney General Hilton cites the fact
that the statute prohibiting the sale
Of malt drinks, whether Intoxicating
or not, except at licensed saloons, was
not repealed by the state prohibition
law, which went into effect July l.,
1919, nor by the constitutional prohibi-
ton amendment. The state prohibi-
ton law contains a general provision
repeating all laws Inconsistent. but the
statute covering the sale of malt
beverages is not regarded by the at
torney general as inconsistent with the
law. Police officers all over the state
have been acting on the supposition
that this law has been repealed.
Must be Licensed Saloon.
+. {. < j
In view Of the fact that the matter
is Of vital Importance and one that
many people throughout the state are
interested in, we publish herewith
Section 3189 Of the General Statutes
Of Minnesota Of 1913, which is still
regarded as IN full force and effect by
4L,o ,o1r Ne
Keeping for sale, selling, giving
away, or disposing Of malt liquor,
whether Intoxicating or not, in any
other place but a licensed saloon, is
hereby prohibited"
Section $3.50 makes violation Of this
statute misdemeanor, punishable by
not more than 80 days in the county
jail. sa
Local Lights Differ.
{ In view Of the fact that not every
ruling made or opinion given by the
attorney generals Office has been up.
held by the Supreme Court, we inter
viewed some Of the local legal lights
most of whom take issue with Attorney
General Hilton and maintain that, in
asmuch as the state prohibition statute
did away with licensed saloons as such
this action automatically voided any
law regulating the same, as it removed
the cause of such regulation. 1t GER
tainly appears to be far-fetched to
ldrag The obsolete statute into the
present situation.
/ No Action Here.
| City Attorney Albert Pfaender in.
formed US that he would take no steps
to enforce Attorney General Hilton's
4 ruling in this city, pending a decision
of the Supreme Court, provided legal
action is taken to enforce the statute
lit is believed that it would prove
rather difficult for the attorney genera
Ito maintain his opinion before the
highest tribunal Of the state. For the
present, at least, the local administra.
4 CtOIl Will pursue Cllc pOAACy III W1gS1l
Fful waiting" made famous by Elk
| President Wilson. +.
/ Proposes Test Case.
i On the other hand, Assistant County
I Attorney Markve Of Hennepin county
/ proposes to institute a test case in thu
courts to definitely decided the issue
He is Of the opinion that the state pro
i hibition law, which became effective
in 1919, prohibits the sale of Jamaic;
ginger, wine or pepsin and all other 50
i called patent medicines that hav.
been used as beverages since the coun
try became dry, on account Of thei
j high alcoholic content. Such medicines
!. Mr.. Markve claims, come under til,
same class as whisky and other in
| toxicating beverages, according t,
q the meaning Of the law. rs
Defines Intoxicating Liquor.
The 1919 law defines intoxicatin,
liquor as a liquid containing "ethy
alcohol or any distilled, fermented
I. -.