Court Opinion

ID: 7823887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:02:34.295685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:48.594421
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. The question which is finally before us is whether private clubs, which dispense intoxicating liquor in dry counties, violate Initiated Act I of 1942 which prohibits the “manufacture, sale, barter, loan or giving away” of any intoxicating liquor in dry counties. In 1969 the Arkansas legislature passed Act 132 which provided that private clubs which dispense intoxicating liquors to its members from a “locker pool” or revolving fund “shall not be deemed to be . . . [selling] or be in violation of any law of this state prohibiting the manufacture, sale, barter, loan or giving away of intoxicating liquor. . . .’’Act 132 was not passed by a two/thirds vote which is required to change an initiated act. In Morris v. Torch Club, 278 Ark. 285, 645 S.W.2d 938 (1983), we remanded this case to the trial court to hear evidence and determine what the facts were regarding private clubs in dry counties; what, indeed, was the practice in the various types of private clubs regarding the common ownership of intoxicating liquors, how the members paid for their drinks and what was the practice regarding guests. The majority has read our decision to be an abandonment of any intention to enforce Initiated Act I of 1942. The majority tries to finesse the tough question and that is what about the liquor dispensed by these clubs to guests, who are either given a drink or pay for it. Such a practice clearly violates the law, and it is a general practice in all the clubs. Every time a guest is served, the law is violated. The majority has no answer to this question except to say it cannot read the law that way, while it does read that way. There is no doubt private clubs can exist, and possession and consumption of intoxicating liquors are not prohibited, but sales are. While it might be impractical to have a private club whose members can drink their own liquor, it can be done. It is just not done. The facts are that all the clubs violate the law in letter and in spirit. The so-called revolving fund is a charade. The clubs sell their “members” drinks. So what we have are a multitude of clubs that exist that sell intoxicating liquor in violation of Initiated Act I. I notice the majority does not discuss the trial court’s ruling regarding those private clubs that may be “joined” simply by registration at a motel or hotel. The judgment reads: The court further finds that it is contrary to the legislative intent expressed in Act 312 of 1969 for persons to be automatically admitted to a private club as guests or special members pursuant to ABC Reg. 5.50(a) (now numbered ABC Reg. 5.45), merely by virtue of their registration at a hotel or (2R 910) motel or being a patron in a restaurant located on the same premises as a private club. Such violations as may exist should be prosecuted by local authorities. The trial court correctly ruled this arrangement is a phony way to circumvent the law. We are affirming this decision. Actually, there is no difference between this practice and allowing a person to join a service club or veteran’s club for $15.00 which simply operates a beer joint. The country clubs and other more exclusive clubs have other reasons to exist than to serve intoxicating liquor, but they will not cease the practice of serving liquor in violation of the law so long as convoluted regulations and laws condone that practice. New clubs will no doubt join the existing clubs. It seems the ABC board promotes the creation of private clubs in dry counties. It was their regulation which spawned many of the phony clubs run by hotels and motels. It would be best to simply follow Initiated Act I of 1942. If counties want to permit liquor sales, they can; if not, they would remain dry - not partly dry. The hypocrisy of the present system can only erode respect for the law and the agencies that are charged with enforcement. I would reverse the trial judge and hold that, on the facts developed, Initiated Act I is being violated by private clubs. Holt, C. J., and Special Justice J. V. Spencer III, join the dissent.