Court Opinion

ID: 9631854
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:53:00.930917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:23.477422
License: Public Domain

Smith, J.
(dissenting): I dissent from paragraphs 3 and 4 of the syllabus and the corresponding portions of the opinion. In my opinion the statute does not confer on the director authority to make Rule 14-2-6 and if it had attempted to do so the act would be void as an attempt to confer legislative power on an administrative body.
At the outset, we have the three branches, legislative, executive and judicial. It is true the last few decades have convinced some of our so-called better people that the legislative branch should be by-passed and we could get along better with just the executive and judicial, but I for one am not willing to concede that.
This case is a classic example of such thinking. The legislature in 1949 enacted chapter 242. It is described as the Kansas Liquor Control Act and has 125 sections. It goes into great detail as to what liquor dealers, both wholesale and retail, may and may not do. One would not be considered unreasonable should he con-*518elude that the legislature covered the ground. It was deemed wise amongst other things to create a separate agency to enforce this law rather than let that be the responsibility of the regularly constituted officials — hence the office of State Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control and the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. The business of controlling the sale of alcoholic beverages rather than prohibiting it was such a new and shocking step for our lawmakers that it was deemed wise to hedge this business with as many safeguards as could be thought of.
It is interesting to note that section 14 of the act enumerates the powers conferred upon the director. I find no general authority for making rules. Indeed paragraph (2) of section 14 confers upon the director authority to establish rules not inconsistent with federal laws for the proper labeling of containers. It occurs to me had the legislature intended to confer general rule-making power upon the director it would have mentioned it amongst these enumerated powers instead of mentioning this limited rule-making power.
Section 15 says in the first sentence:
“The director shall adopt and promulgate such rules and regulations as' shall be necessary to carry out the intent and purposes of this act.”
Later in the section we find a provision:
“It is intended by this grant of the power to adopt rules and regulations, that the director shall be clothed with broad discretionary powers to govern the traffic in alcoholic liquors, and to enforce strictly all the provisions of this act in the interest of sanitation, purity of products, truthful representation and honest dealings' in such manner as generally will promote the public health and welfare. All valid rules and regulations adopted under the provisions of this act shall be absolutely binding upon all licensees and enforceable by the director through the power of suspension or cancellation of licenses.”
The next section, section 16, provides that
“The rules and regulations established by the director, among other things, shall include regulations.”
Then appear some ten provisions as to what these regulations of the director shall cover, no provision to cover the instant rule.
Now let us see what the legislature provided about violations of the act.
We find section 99, now G. S. 1949,41-904, providing
“Every act or omission of whatsoever nature constituting a violation of any of the provisions of this act, by any officer, director, manager or other agent or employee of any licensee, if such act is committed or omission is made with the authorization, knowledge or approval of the licensee, shall be deemed and held to be the act of such employer or licensee, and such employer or licensee shall *519be punishable in the same manner as if such act or omission had been made or omitted by him personally.”
The legislature in that section provided that the acts of any officer, director, manager or other agent or employee of any licensee should not be a violation of the act unless done with the authorization, knowledge or approval of the licensee.
Now Rule No. 14-2-6 provides:
“Licensees are at all times responsible for the conduct of their business and are at all times directly responsible for any act or conduct of any employee on the premises, which is in violation of the act or the rules and regulations of the director.”
The majority opinion holds that section 41-904, G. S. 1949, only applies to criminal violations and that Rule 14-2-6 only covers matters providing for the cancellation of a license.
I cannot see this distinction. The majority opinion says sound public policy requires that such a rule be made. That is another way of stating “the end justifies the means” or in other words, the liquor traffic is difficult to control — hence in order to control it more expeditiously we had better forget about the constitution. Frankly to me this is bureaucracy gone mad. One can hardly pick up a paper today without reading some tirade against bureaucracy and the drift toward making ours a government of men instead of one of laws. There is sound basis for much concern in that regard. Bureaucracy is bureaucracy whether it is in Washington or in Topeka. If the legislature had intended that there should be such a provision as is contained in Rule 14-2-6 it could have inserted such amongst the other 125 provisions. It at least could have added it to the provisions of G. S. 1949, 41-715, which provides that a sale by an employee to a minor is an offense of the licensee whether the licensee knew about it or not. To me this rule, 14-2-6, is repugnant to every thought I have ever had about our legal system. Our books are full now of bad law written trying to make the old prohibitory law work. I hate to embark on another series of such bad decisions. It would not be so bad if this would just apply to liquor dealers. There seems to be an open season upon them anyway. But I know within a few years the opinion of the majority of this court will be cited as authority to justify an upholding of fraud action of some board or bureau handling some legitimate business. That is the way bad law comes to be recognized and followed. If the liquor traffic is so bad a thing that we must destroy the constitution to control it, then we *520had better return to prohibition. I do not want my name connected with such a holding.
Actually what happened here is that the director concluded it would have been better if the legislature had included in chapter 242, a section similar to Rule 14-2-6, and so he just proceeded to enact a rule. He legislated on a subject the legislature had covered. It is clear to me the legislature did not wish such a provision in the act or it would have put it in.