The American issue. [volume] (Westerville, Ohio) 1912-19??, 1931-02-01

pn3IlQaclSlS 10 sell liquors LOT NleQlCllldl,
mechanical, sacramental and chemical
purposes only, under such restrictions and
regulations as should be provided by o.
dinances. Smith-Hurd's III. Rev St. 1928,
Oh. 43, Sec. 80. (By the Cities and Vii
lagos act, cities and villages we're en-
powered to license, regulate and prohibit
the selling or giving away of Intoxicating
liquors. permits to be granted to druggists
for the sale of liquor for medicinal me-
chanical, Sacramental and chemical pur-
poses. Art 5, Oh. %. sec. $685. Smith
Hurd's II. Rev. st. 1920.
The Dram-Shop act also prohibited
sales of intoxicating liquor to minors and
to drunkards. Smith-Hurd's I'll. Rev. st.
1923, On. 43, Sec 10.
The Local Option law provided that by
a majority vote town, township Cor pre-
cinct thereoO a village Or city could pro-
hibit the sale, barter or exchange of i'll
toXicating liquor, with the exception that
sales could be made by druggists for me-
dicinal, mechanical, Saeramental and
chemical purposes only, as provided by
law. 1t provided for re-Submission of the
question after the lapse of eighteen
months, for the purpose of determining
whether the territory should continue An
ti-Saloon territory.
The Local Option law did not have the
effect Of repeating the Dranl-Shop act
and its supplementary laws. When duly
adopted and put in force in munich
pality it constituted the exclusive system
for the regulation of liquor selling in that
locality, and had the effect of suspending
only during its continuance, all previous
laws and provisions Of laws inconsistent
with its terms See Smith-Hurd's III. Rev.
st. 1929, CHI as, Secs. 1906 LOT, 100, and
Nf To at Ann
SO the Dram Shop acts and the Local
Option law read together constituted the
controlling liquor legislation on the
statute books during the time when they
were in effect
The supreme court has held that the
Illinois Prohibition act, enacted in 1921,
repealed the Local Option law. People v
Williams 300 III. 492. The court said:
Counsel says that the Prohibition
act does not repeal any part of the
Local Option act Of 1907; that differ
ent penalties are fixed by the two
acts for the same offense, and that
plaintiff in error is liable to proSecu-
ton under the Local Option act FOR
the same sales Of liquor. The Prohibi-
ton act is a revision of the whole
subject under the amendment to the
federal constitution and was intended
as substitute for the existing law on
that subject It operated as a repeal
except as to pending proceedings, al
though it contained no express re-
.pealing clause. Board of Trustees v
City Of Chicago, IA III. 1874, Culver v.
Third Nat. Bank, Cd i'd $685. DeVine
V. Board Of Comrs. 81 id. 500; People
V. Nelson, 156 id. 364; People Y. Board
of Education, 166 id. 1888; People v
Town of Thornton, 1856 id. 1872; State
Board of Health V. Ross, 191 id 81.
See also People Y. Alfano, 322 III. 384.
Under the above decisions it would
seem that the old Dram-Shop laws as
we'll as the Local Option law, are re-
pealed. And in view Of the principle that
the repeal of statute which was a re-
vision of, and which was intended as a
substitute for a former act to the same
effect, will not revive the latter (Endlich
on Interpretation of Statutes, Sec. 475),
and the statutory provision that no act
or part Of an act repealed by the General
Assembly shall be deemed to be revived
by the repeal of the repeating act Och.
1871 Sec. 3, Smith-Hurd's Ill Rev. st.
1920, if the legislature should now repeal
the Illinois Prohibition act the Local Op-
ton Law and Dram Shop act, and its
supplemental legislation, will not be re-
vived. Then it would follow that the state
would be left with no prohibitory or reg
ulatory provisions governing liquor traffic
in force as state law
However, let us consider what provisions
nF low oY1v would bava of IN,