There are also statutes punishing disturbing a public meeting, and others which specifically punish the disturbance of religious meetings. The statutes seem to cover an offense committed only when the meeting is in a regular place of worship, and do not embrace an assembly in a public street,* or a private house,50 but any method or mode of worship is protected, without regard to creed.51 There must be a considerable number of persons collected about the place for worship and at about the time for worship to constitute an assembly.52 The protection is in effect until the congregation has dispersed.53 Irreverent conduct annoying the minister,54 such as cracking and eating nuts,55 loud and profane talking,56 engaging in a fight,57 speaking insultingly upon leave,58 or refusal to desist speaking when so directed by the minister,59 may constitute a disturbance. Singing by one conscientiously taking part in worship, though of a nature to excite mirth and indignation, is not punishable.60 It is not necessary to constitute the offense that the whole congregation be disturbed, if a few members or even one be disturbed.61

49 State v. Schieneman, 64 Mo. 386.

50 State v. Starnes, 151 N. Car. 724, 66 S. E. 347, 19 Ann. Cas. 448. 51 Hull v. State, 120 Ind. 153, 22 N. E. 117; Cline v. State, 9 Okla. Cr. 40, 130 Pac. 510, 45 L. R. A. (N. S.) 108n; note to 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 829.

52 State v. Bryson, 82 N. Car. 576.

53 Lancaster v. State, 53 Ala. 398, 25 Am. Rep. 625; State v. Lusk, 68 Ind. 264; State v. Jones, 53 Mo. 486; State v. Ramsay, 78 N. Car. 448; Commonwealth v. Jennings, 3 Grat. (Va.) 624.

54 Friedlander v. State, 7 Tex. App. 204.

55 Hunt v. State, 3 Tex. App. 116, 30 Am. Rep. 126.

56 McElroy v. State, 25 Tex. 507. 57 Wright v. State, 8 Lea (Tenn.) 563.

58 Lancaster v. State, 53 Ala. 398, 25 Am. Rep. 625.

59 State v. Ramsay, 78 N. Car. 448.

60 State v. Linkhaw, 69 N. Car. 214, 12 Am. Rep. 645.

61 Cockreham v. State, 7 Humph. (Tenn.) 11; McElroy v. State, 25 Tex. 507.

A specific intent to disturb the congregation is not necessary to constitute the offense,62 though under some statutes the disturbance must be "willful."63

62 Walker v. State, 103 Ark. 336, 146 S. W. 862, Ann. Cas. 1914 B, 739n.

63 State v. Stroud, 99 Iowa 16, 68 N. W. 450.

751. What are intoxicating liquors. 759. The Eighteenth Amendment 752. What is a sale.

753. Sale or purchase by agent or

servant.

754. Sale for 1 1edical use.

to the Federal Constitution. 760. The "Bone-Dry" Law of the State of Kansas.

§ 746. Generally.-At common law a tippling house was indictable as a nuisance1 and there are some statutes which make the same an offense. This offense was sufficiently discussed in the chapter on Disorderly House.2

From early English times the sale of intoxicating liquor has been regulated by statute. There is no other business or occupation which is so much regulated by statute today as the selling of intoxicating liquor, and the statutes are so various in form that no attempt will be made here to treat the subject more than generally. The statutes regulating such sale are an exercise of the police power of the state on the theory that the free sale and use of intoxicants is detri

1 Stephens v. Watson, 1 Salk, 45. 2 See ch. 53, § 705.

32 Hen. VII, ch. 2, (1494) permitting the denial of the right to

keep an ale house; 5 & 6 Edw. VI, ch. 25, (1552) restricting keeping of ale and drinking houses to persons licensed.

mental to the public.

There is also the fact that the licensing of the sale of liquors forms a considerable source of revenue to the state, and for this reason also the state is interested in protecting its revenues, and the rights of those who have purchased a license to sell liquors.

8747. Liquor statutes and Federal Constitution.-Statutes regulating the sale of liquor when tested have been held not to violate the Federal constitution, for they do not impair the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States by regulating or taking away the right to sell liquor nor deny to citizens of another state privileges and immunities granted to its own citizens when the issue of licenses is restricted to citizens of a state; and the diminution in value of property devoted to the manufacture and sale of liquor is neither de

4 Giozza v. Tiernan, 148 U. S. 657, 37 L. ed. 599; Crowley v. Christensen, 137 U. S. 86, 34 L. ed. 620; Bostick v. State, 47 Ark. 126; State v. Hodgson, 66 Vt. 134, 28 Atl. 1089; State v. Hampton, 106 S. Car. 275, 91 S. E. 314; State v. Stoughton Club, 163 Wis. 362, 158 N. W. 93; People v. Johnson, 200 Ill. App. 603; Pine v. Commonwealth, 121 Va. 652, 93 S. E. 652; State v. Hemrich, 93 Wash. 439, 161 Pac. 79, L. R. A. 1917 B, 962n; State v. Theodore (Mo.), 191 S. W. 422; Stratford, Inc. v. Seattle Brewing & Malting Co., 94 Wash. 125, 162 Pac. 31, L. R. A. 1917 C, 931n.

5 Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 28 L. ed. 629; Beer Co. v. Massachusetts, 97 U. S. 25, 24 L. ed. 989; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 129, 21 L. ed. 929; In re Hoover, 30 Fed. 51; Prohibitory Amendment Cases, 24 Kans. 700; State v. Brennan, 2 S. Dak. 384, 50 N. W. 685; Bell v. State, 28 Tex.

App. 96, 12 S. W. 410. See also note to 15 L. R. A. (N. S.) 908; State v. Fabbri, 98 Wash. 207, 167 Pac. 133; State v. Wilbur, 85 Ore. 565, 166 Pac. 51, 167 Pac. 569; Crane v. Campbell, 245 U. S. 304, 38 Sup. Ct. 98, 62 L. ed. 304; People v. Jones, 280 Ill. 259, 117 N. E. 417 (prohibiting intoxication on railroad premises is not violative of Fourteenth Amendment); People ex rel. Doscher v. Sisson, 167 N. Y. S. 801, 180 App. Div. 464 (law authorizing excise commissioner to prohibit sales of intoxicants in proximity to army camps, etc., held constitutional as proper exercise of state police power), affirmed 222 N. Y. 387, 118 N. E. 789.

6 Kohn v. Melcher, 29 Fed. 433; Christian Moerlein Brewing Co. v. Roser, 169 Ky. 198, 183 S. W. 479; State v. Little, 171 N. Car. 805, 88 S. E. 723; Kansas City v. Jordan, 99 Kans. 814, 163 Pac. 188, Ann. Cas. 1918 B, 273.

priving persons of property without due process of law, nor taking property for public use without compensation, since property rights are subject to the police power, and there is nothing taken for public use. Nor do statutes providing for the abating in an equity trial of keeping liquor for unlawful sale, or selling it unlawfully, deny due process of law.8

However, it seems that statutes discriminating in favor of liquor made in the state, are unconstitutional. So is a state statute restricting transportation into a state,10 and regulations as to the sale of liquor do not apply to their sale in the state as articles of interstate commerce in the original package in which they were shipped.11

After the decision as to sales in the original package was made, the Wilson Act was passed by congress. This act made liquors brought into the state subject to the state regulations to the same extent as if produced in the state, even if sold in the original package.12

Even under this act a state could not prohibit importation of liquor into the state. 18

§ 748. Liquor statutes and state constitutions.-Usually the liquor statutes have been held valid under state consti

7 Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 346; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205; Kaufman v. Dostal, 73 Iowa 691, 36 N. W. 643.

8 Eilenbecker v. District Court, 134 U. S. 31, 33 L. ed. 801; Kidd v. Pearson, 128 U. S. 1, 32 L. ed. 346; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205; Kaufman v. Dostal, 73 Iowa 691, 36 N. W. 643.

9 Walling v. Michigan, 116 U. S. 446, 29 L. ed. 691; Tiernan v. Rinker, 102 U. S. 123, 26 L. ed. 103; Ex parte Edgerton, 59 Fed. 115;

McCreary v. State, 73 Ala. 480; State v. Deschamp, 53 Ark. 490, 14 S. W. 653.

10 Bowman v. Chicago &c. R. Co., 125 U. S. 465, 31 L. ed. 700; Ex parte Loeb, 72 Fed. 657.

11 Leisy v. Hardin, 135 U. S. 100, 34 L. ed. 128.

12 U. S. Comp. Stat. (1916), §8738. See also, Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 419, 6 L. ed. 678.

13 Ex parte Jervey, 66 Fed. 957; Ex parte Edgerton, 59 Fed. 115.