Court Opinion

ID: 9624014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:48:43.286687+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:37.761663
License: Public Domain

ME. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN
(specially concurring):
I concur in the foregoing opinion and would reach that result for a further reason: We have repeatedly held that if a statute is open to two constructions, one of which would render *149it unconstitutional and the other valid, we would adopt the latter construction.
If the laws were interpreted as giving a special privilege to certain select corporations and associations to operate slot machines when denied to others, then they would be unconstitutional as in direct conflict with section 26 of Article Y of the Constitution which in part provides: ‘ ‘ The legislative assembly shall not pass local or special laws * * * granting to any corporation, association or individual * * * any special or exclusive privilege, immunity, or franchise whatever. ’ ’
It is the general rule that the state ‘ ‘ cannot enact valid criminal laws if such laws make an act done by one penal and impose no penalty upon another for the same act done under like circumstances, or confer the right upon one class of citizens to do an act which is a criminal offense if done by any other class.” 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, sec. 557, p. 251.
Since the laws may be reasonably construed so as not to conflict with the Constitution we must so interpret them and this is further reason why the foregoing opinion is correct.