[blocks in formation]

A complete compilation of the Iowa Statutes relating to
Intoxicating Liquor, including Extracts from

United States Statutes

Including laws relating to Special Agents, Red Light Injunc-
tions, Cigarettes, Removal of Public Officials, Crim-

inal Procedure and Duties of Officers

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]

to A

135 2767 917


JUL 1 1920 )



The purpose of this compilation is to present in one volume all the law relating to intoxicating liquor now on the statutes of Iowa and to give citations on points of law where confusion exists.

United States statutes are set forth in order to assist those charged with the duty of law enforcement to better fulfill their duties.

There has been no attempt in this compilation to give all the authorities to be found supporting the views herein presented.

New amendments appear in black face type.


The thirty-sixth general assembly proposed to amend the constitution of Iowa (Senate Joint Resolution No. 6) by adding a provision prohibiting the manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale of intoxicating liquor as a beverage. This proposal was agreed to by a majority of the members of the thirty-seventh general assembly (Senate Joint Resolution No. 3), and was ordered submitted to the people for their ratification at a special election to be held October 15, 1917. (37 G. A., S. F. 176.)

The following proposed amendment to article I of the constitution of Iowa will therefore be submitted, namely:

To add thereto following section twenty-six (26) thereof and as section twenty-seven (27) of article one (1) of said constitution the following, to-wit:

“SEC. 27. The manufacture, sale, or keeping for sale, as a beverage, of intoxicating liquors, including ale, wine and beer, shall be forever prohibited within this state. The general assembly shall by law prescribe regulations for the enforcement of the prohibition herein contained, and shall provide suitable penalties for the violation of the provisions hereof."

Over thirty-five years ago an attempt was made to amend the constitution of Iowa in a similar manner. The several steps were taken and the governor, on the 29th of July, 1882, declared the amendment legally adopted. Later it was discovered that the amendment passed by the nine. teenth general assembly and ratified by the electors did not include the words “or to be used” which were in the amendment passed by the eighteenth general assembly. Therefore, the supreme court of Iowa, in the case of Koehler vs. Hill, 60 Iowa, 543 (April, 1883), declared the amendment void.




In this state we have what is known as statutory prohibition. The only advantage of having constitutional prohibition is that by providing for the prohibition issue in the constitution the question is settled and can only be changed in one of two ways: (1) by the constitutional convention which cannot meet except once in ten years and then only when a majority of the people vote such a convention; (2) by having two consecutive legislatures agreeing to a change in the constitution and by having this agreement ratified by the people at an election for that purpose. On the other hand, statutory provisions may be amended or repealed at any session of the legislature; thus the law is subject to constant change.

Chapter 6, title 12, of the code, as amended, covers the subject of intoxicating liquors and prohibits the manufacture, sale or keeping for sale of intoxicating liquors within this state. However, our legislature has deemed it wise to make certain exceptions as to the sale, or keeping for sale, of intoxicating liquors and under certain restrictions intoxicating liquor may be sold for mechanical, pharmaceutical, medicinal, and sacramental purposes.

For many years the proposition was seriously argued that a state had no right to restrict or prohibit the sale or use of intoxicating liquors; that to do so would be in conflict with the rights guaranteed to each individual through the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of United States, but this theory is now completely overthrown. States in the exercise of their reserve police power have authority to absolutely prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors or to make such regulation as they may deem necessary. State vs. Delamater, 20 S. D., 23; 104 N. W., 537; 8 L. R. A. (NS), 774, later approved by the supreme court of the United States in vol. 205, p. 93. The supreme court of the United States in the case of Phillips vs. Mobile, 208 U. S., 472; 52 L. Ed., 578, held that the sale of intoxicating liquor may be absolutely prohibited or the business may be controlled and regulated by the imposition of license taxes by which only those who obtain the license will be permitted to engage in ‘it. Our own supreme court in the case of the State vs. United States Express Company, 164 Iowa, 112; 145 N. W., 451 held that there is no inherent right in a citizen to thus sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not a privilege of a citizen of the state or of a citizen of the United States. As it is a business attended with danger to the community, it may, be entirely prohibited. or be permitted under such conditions as will limit to the utmost its

« ForrigeFortsett »