any commodity, enter into an agreement or understanding to refuse to buy from or sell to any person, firm, corporation or association of persons, any article of merchandise, produce or commodity.'

"The above section is intended to prohibit and does prohibit the making of agreements whereby persons agree not to sell articles of merchandise, having in view the fixing of prices or limiting the supply of merchandise, etc., and does not relate to in any manner an agreement where the parties are not to sell merchandise within a prohibited territory until the law defining such territory has been passed upon by some court of competent jurisdiction. The intent of the parties being to comply with the law, and the suspension of sales only having this in view, the above section of the anti-trust law does not, in my opinion, apply."

Virginia: Sustaining the Circuit Court of Lancaster County in the case of H. H. Runde vs. the Commonwealth, the Supreme Court of Appeals decided that the mere possession by any person of a liquor tax receipt from the United States Government is prima facie evidence of violation of the State liquor laws. Of course, this does not apply to persons who have been licensed by the State to sell, but only to those who have not been so licensed. The Court construes the Maun bill bearing on this point not only to mean what it says, but to be in all respects valid. The defendant in the case had previously been found guilty and fined $100. An appeal was taken but the Court refused to set aside the verdict, basing its opinion upon an old decision of the Supreme Court of Maine upholding a law in that State which is almost identical with the Maun bill.

No charge was made against the defendant of selling liquor and no evidence was offered save the tax certificate. The law not only makes the possession of such a certificate prima facie evidence of violation of the State law, provided he be not regularly licensed, but shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, requiring him to show that he has not been guilty of such violation.

In the Roanoke whiskey cases the State Corporation Commission holds that retailers may ship and express companies are compelled to deliver intoxicating liquors in "dry" towns, but that the wholesale dealers are debarred. Town ordinances of Glade Springs, Radford and other places under prohibition forbade the sale or delivery of liquors therein, and the express companies refused to handle the

parcels consigned to these points. On the other hand, State law compels common carriers to accept and deliver all packages duly presented, and the Roanoke liquor dealers brought suit. After hearing the Corporation Commission found that the express companies are required to handle shipments when made by retail dealers, but that the wholesale dealers and manufacturers cannot make such shipments, thus debarring wholesale dealers and brewers from selling in the towns named. The Portner Brewing Company claimed that the decision was in error but the Commission refused to reopen the case. The Commission said that in its construction of the law "the private consumer living in a no-license territory may buy in small quantities for personal use, while those who are engaged in the illegal sale of liquor cannot buy in large quantities from the manufacturers or wholesale dealers and use the common carriers as their conscious or unconscious aiders and abettors in their violation of the law."

The Ward law, enacted by the General Assembly at its last session, was found unconstitutional by Judge Goodrich who set aside the election in Fredericksburg held in May in which there was given a majority of 31 against license. A number of other elections under this law were held at about this time. The Ward law provides that "at any local option election held on or before the second Tuesday of June, in any year, any person shall be qualified to vote who is otherwise qualified and has personally paid at least six months prior all poll taxes assessed or assessable against him during the three years next preceding to that in which such special or local option election is held." An appeal was taken to the Supreme Court.

Wisconsin: Under a recent ruling of the Attorney-General of Wisconsin, saloon licenses cannot be granted to corporations. The opinion is based on the ground that a corporation is not a full citizen of the United States, and in brief is as follows:

"Although section 4971 provides that the word 'person' in our statutes may be extended to include corporations, as well as individuals, if there is nothing in the statute to show that such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the Legislature, it seems to me apparent that provision 1565 L of our law absolutely bars corporations from receiving licenses.

“A corporation is not a full citizen of the United States nor of the State in the sense in which the terms are used in this statute,

nor are they residents of any town, city or village in this State. It may also be stated that a great many of the violations of our liquor laws provide a punishment of imprisonment, together with a fine. Although a corporation may be indicted, convicted and punished by fine or forfeiture under our law, still it is impossible to imprison a corporation.

"The authorities that I have examined on the question of whether a corporation can be lawfully licensed to sell intoxicating liquors at retail turned upon the construction of some statutory provisions, and I find no authority which would authorize me to hold that under the provisions of one statute a corporation could be legally licensed to sell intoxicating liquors at retail.

"The statutory requirement that the applicant for a license shall be a citizen of the State and a resident of the county or district where he proposes to do business is jurisdictional in its nature and unless the petitioner satisfied the licensing authorities that he possesses those qualifications, they have no power to grant a license.

"I may also add that under our statute it is left to the discretion of the licensing authority to grant licenses to suitable persons and it is their duty to pass upon the personal qualifications of the applicant. These personal qualifications, it would seem to me, are such as would apply only to individuals and from the nature of things are not applicable to corporations."

For want of time no attempt has been made to give in this chapter a complete digest of the numerous legal decisions affecting the drink problem; but in our Year Book for 1910, a comprehensive statement of legal decisions will be included.

ALABAMA:

LIQUOR LICENSE FEES IN 1908.

Prohibition.

ALASKA:

Breweries, $500; bottling works, $200; wholesale liquor license, $2,000; retail liquor license in towns under 1,500 population, $1,000; in towns over 1,500 population, $1,500; and in towns under 1,000 population, $500. Wholesale license covers sales of one gallon or more not to be drunk on the premises. The license must be obtained from the district court.

ARIZONA:

Retail license, $300 per year; wholesale license, from $75 to $125 per quarter, according to amount of sales. A peddler with a wagon, $400 per annum; distilleries or breweries, from $10 to $40 per quarter, according to amount of sales.

ARKANSAS:

Manufacturers may sell in original packages of not less than five gallons without license, and wine growers may sell their own wine in quantities of not less than one-fifth gallon without license. State and County license, $700 per annum; wholesale dealers in malt liquors, $50 as State tax and $100 as county tax.

CALIFORNIA:

State license, based on amount of business done, $1 to $50 per month for sales of one quart or over, and $5 to $40 per month for sales in less quantity than one quart.

COLORADO:

State license fee, $25, in addition to whatever municipal license required in any place.

CONNECTICUT:

County license, $450 per annum in towns of over 3,000 inhabitants, and $250 for smaller places. License for sale of ale, cider, beer and Rhine wine only is $200 per annum. Wholesale license fee is $200.

DELAWARE:

License fee is $100 per annum.

FLORIDA:

Retail license fees are $1,000, one-half of which goes to county and one-half to State.

FLORIDA:

Distillers or brewers, $500; clubs, from $100 to $150, according to membership. Distillers or brewers not permitted to sell less than fifty gallons spirituous liquors, or ten gallons malt liquors, except to licensed dealers.

GEORGIA:
Prohibition.

HAWAII:

Retail license fee, $1,000 per annum; wholesale, $500; distilling and brewing, $250.

IDAHO:

Licenses granted by Board of County Commissioners, $750 per annum. Cities and towns may impose such addditional license as they desire.

ILLINOIS:

Soliciting orders for liquor in quantity less than five gallons from consumers is forbidden without a special license fee of not less than $500 per annum, paid in advance. Any person holding city or village license may solicit in that city or village. County licenses granted by County Board in places more than two miles from incorporated city, town or village from $50 to $300 per annum, in the discretion of County Board. Municipal license fixed by each municipality, but not less than $500 for all liquors, and not less than $150 for malt liquors only.

INDIANA:

In addition to a State tax of $100, which goes to the school fund of the county, city councils may impose a license not exceeding $250 per year. Incorporated towns which are not cities charge a license fee of $150. There is no prescribed license for wholesale dealers. A distiller's or brewer's license may not exceed $1,000 a year.