The Liquor Legislation

At the recent aeasion of the Legislatura a " new departure " was taken, or new legislation was had with a riew of better regulating or reBtraining the liquor traffio ; we say regulating and restraining, for we take it for granted that the prohibitory legialation of the last twenty years has been practioally, though not designedly, in the interest of free trade. The several laws enacted in the interest and with the aim specified, are ásfollowa: lst, a tax law, which also repeals the prohibitory law of 1855 and the laws amendatory thereof; 2d, a law prohibiting the sale to minors, drunkards, etc. (which will found on the firat page of this paper) ; 3d, a law iuüioting heavy penalties for the adulteration of liquors ; and, 4th, a law taxing non-resident dealers who canvass the State by agenta, selling by samples. The law which excites the most comment is the first namod, which imposes the following taxes upon the trafile: Upon the selling or offering for sale, at retail, of spirituous or intoxicating liquors, including patent medicines, mixtures, or oompounds, $150 annually, assessable in May and payable in June. Upon the retailing of fermented or brewed liquors, or any other beverage, 40 : uDon the selling at wholesale of spirituous or intoxicating liquora, $300 ; upon the wholesale traffic in hrewed or malt liquors, $100; upon the manufacture of brewed or malt liquors a graded tax of from $100 to $200; and upon the manufacture of gpirituous ot intoxicating liquors, $300. The law prescribes the mode of assessment, collection, etc, and affixes severe penalties for a neglect of duty on the part of oflicers, and provides for turning over the proceeds of the taxes gathered in under this law to the village, township, or city in whicb they are collected, the collections to be made by the Sheriff, under the warrant of the County Treasurer. This law, we are quite confident, is in the right direction, though it is crudely drawn, has several large escape holes (say the section permittmg druggists to sell untaxed, without prohibiting drinking on the premises or requiring a record of the " prescriptions"), and will need reviaing at the first opportunity. Dealers and absolute free traders object to it because of the high tax, claiming that it neither encourages nor protects the traffic, but is calculated to drive out small dealers and créate a monopoly. The object of any legislation on this subject, we take it, is in the interest of the community and not of the dealers, and such legislation is to be defended on the ground that great evils grow out of the unrestrained traffic, evils which surround and adhere to no other business or trade. The promotion of temperance and good order is the aiin in view, and 11 the law shaU De found to tend in that direction the coniplaint of small dealers will weigh but little in the balance. The oonstitutionality of the law is also being discussed. Prohibitioniats and delaers, or a portion of each, unite in pronouncing a tax law the same as a license law, and therefore unoonstitutional. All such should remember that the Constitution does not prohibit and outlaw the traffic in liquor, but simply prohibits the licensing of it. Without any law on the Bubject, every manmay inake, buy, and sell the same as he may engage in other business. The tax law recognizes the fact, prohibits no one from selling, but imposes an excise tax, as a revenue, regulating, restraining, or pólice, measures one or all, if the business is embarked in. No court, we venture to predict, will hold such a tax in any sense a license. It is again objected that an unoonstitutional disposition is made of the moneys collected : that they should have gone into certain State funds, instead of to the nmnicipalities. If a speciflo State tax there may be force in the objeotion, but if a municipal tax, authorized, as all municipal taxes must be, by State law, it is not necessarily void because collected by officers designated by the State. We are inclined to think that this feature will stand the test. Another objection is that the law has more than oue jeot, and Í8 therefore unconstitutional. The objeot is a single one, and the repealing section, on which this objection is based, is clearly within the scope of that object. Without it the law would conflict with the prohibitory laws, and being the latest enactment would supercede them. To repeal saved all disputed points, and a separate bill or law would have been contrary to all precedent and was unnecesaary. Another objection is made that property not belonging to the saloon-keeper, or property unöer ohattel mortgage, may be levied upon in collection of the tax_ Their claim may be held void and yet not touch the body of the law. But a question : Cannot the Legislature make taxes imposed by its authority take precedence of chattel mortgage liens mada after the enactment of the law 'i In any event, if the law is held, aa a whole, uuconstitutional, the prohibitory law will stand unrepealed, a question which those writing in the interest of the tramo should conBider. We have no space for further comment at this time, and will only add that from all parts of the State come reporta of saloons being closed up by the dozen or score, an indication that the law has some vitality iu and of itself. lts imperfections may be remedied when disclosed. The Ypsilanti 8entinel thinks the law tftxing foreign dealers and manufaoturera selling iu this State unoonstitutional : lat beoause the tax ia " doublé the amount levied on our own manufactures ; and, 2d, because the State or ita Legislatura oannot " regúlate commerce between States." The tax is not doublé but the same, the foreign dealers always being wholesalers. Then the sales are to be made in the State and oounty, United States as well as State, wliich havo refuited judgments to land and Toledo dealers for liquors sold by agenta canvass in this State, will not be likely to regard the SentineVs seoond objection as valid.