People v. Kaelber
| Decision Date | 03 April 1912 |
| Citation | 97 N.E. 1068,253 Ill. 552 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. KAELBER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Adams County Court; Lyman McCarl, Judge.
Henry Kaelber was convicted of selling intoxicating liquors within two-thirds of a mile of the Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Home, and brings error. Affirmed.
John T. Inghram and L. H. Berger, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Stead, Atty. Gen., and John T. Gilmer, State's Atty. (George H. Wilson, of counsel), for the People.
The plaintiff in error was convicted in the circuit of Adams county of selling intoxicating liquors within twothirds of a mile of the Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Home at Quincy, in violation of an act of the General Assembly approved June 10, 1911 (Laws of 1911, p. 309), and he has sued out this writ of error, claiming that the act violates section 22 of article 4 of the Constitution, prohibiting the passage of local or special laws regulating county and township affairs or changing or amending the charter of any town, city, or village.
The city of Quincy on March 31, 1911, issued to the plaintiff in error a license for one year entitling him to keep a dramshop at 339 Cedar street, in that city, which place was 1,720 feet south of the north boundary line of the city and 2,500 feet south of the south and nearest boundary line of the Illinois Soldiers' and Sailors' Home. This is the only home of its kind maintained by the state of Illinois, and is located north and entirely outside of, but adjoining, the city of Quincy, within the town of Riverside. On July 1, 1911, the plaintiff in error was keeping a dramshop at 339 Cedar street under the authority of the license issued to him, and he then and there sold intoxicating liquors. The act of June 10, 1911, provides that on and after July 1, 1911, it shall be unlawful to sell, distribute, or give away any malt, spirituous, vinous or intoxicating liquors within two-thirds of a mile of the boundary line or lines of land owned or mainatained by the state of Illinois as a soldiers' and sailors' home. It is insisted that the act is local and special because the state has but one soldiers' and sailors' home and will probably never have another, because the only territory in which the sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited extends two-thirds of a mile from the home and is within the limits of the city of Quincy, constituting approximately one-third of the entire territory of the city, and because the city has power, under the general laws of the state, to grant license for the sale of liquor within its limits, and the control of this right is vested, under the general laws and under section 2 of article 9 of the Constitution, in the legal voters of the city.
[1] Regulation of the sale of intoxicating liquor by prescribing the times and places when and where and the circumstances under which it may be sold is within the police power of the state, and the authority of the Legislature to enact into law the provisions contained in the act in question is not denied by the plaintiff in error, provided the enactment is general and not local or special. Whether the act regulates county or township affairs is a question not presented by this record, for the plaintiff in error is not affected by any such regulations. His right rests solely upon the license granted by the city.
The requirement that laws shall be general does not mean that every statute shall have effect upon every individual and in every locality in the state. Such a construction is impossible. It is only upon individuals and in places where the situation contemplated by the act has arisen that it can have any effect, and a law does not cease to be general because it classifies persons or places, if the basis of classification is necessary to the purpose to be accomplished by the legislation or reasonably appropriate for that purpose. There are numerous statutes which prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquor to certain persons at certain times, in certain places. Under the dramshop act all such sales are unlawful, except such as are made by virtue of a license granted by some municipal authority. The sale of intoxicating liquor is prohibited at all times in some places and at some times in all places. We have recognized the right of a city council to prohibit the sale in certain parts of the city while permitting it in other parts. People v. Cregier, 138 Ill. 401, 28 N. E. 812;Moore v. Mayor of Danville, 232 Ill. 307, 83 N. E. 845.
The act is not local merely because one soldiers' and sailors' home only is maintained by the state and the act can therefore operate in but one place. An act which is general in its nature and uniform in its operation upon all persons coming within its scope is a general law. People v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moshier v. City of Springfield
...of the enactment. Mathews v. City of Chicago, 342 Ill. 120, 174 N.E. 35;Martens v. Brady, 264 Ill. 178, 106 N.E. 266;People v. Kaelber, 253 Ill. 552, 97 N.E. 1068;Booth v. Opel, 244 Ill. 317, 91 N.E. 458;People v. Knopf, 183 Ill. 410, 56 N.E. 155;Stewart v. Brady, 300 Ill. 425, 133 N.E. 310......
-
Griffin v. Cook Cnty.
...all of the governed, but because it may embrace all when they are similarly situated and come within its provisions' (People v. Kaelber, 253 Ill. 552, 97 N.E. 1068, 1069), and if there is a reasonable basis for the classification a law may be general notwithstanding the fact that it operate......
-
People v. Monroe
...all of the governed, but because it may embrace all when they are similarly situated and come within its provisions. People v. Kaelber, 253 Ill. 552, 97 N. E. 1068. Whether the laws are general or special does not depend upon the number of those who are within the scope of their operation. ......
-
People v. Gordon
...have been upheld. This court has repeatedly had occasion to refer to this question in considering liquor laws. In People v. Kaelber, 253 Ill. 552, 554, 97 N. E. 1068, 1069, we said: ‘The requirement that laws shall be general does not mean that every statute shall have effect upon every ind......