on the assumption that we would hold that said article 20 of the constitution had never been adopted. As we do not so hold we need add nothing to what we have said in the Haas case.
The next point made by relator—that the statute is unconstitutional, because it inflicts cruel and unusual punishment—hardly merits mention. It is legal history that all jurisdictions that have sought to prohibit or effectually control the sale of intoxicants have found, it necessary from time to time to increase the rigor of the punishment for the violation of prohibitory and regulating laws. The matter is peculiarly of legislative cognizance, and we certainly see nothing in this statute that indicates that the legislature has provided for greater punishment than is requisite to the Proper execution of the law. Nor does the fact that by such statute the sale of intoxicants for lawful purposes is confined to druggists render the statute open to the charge of want of uniformity in its operation. It applies to all persons who come within its terms, and no person is prohibited from placing himself within its terms. That is all the constitutional provision requires. Trust Co. v. Whithed, 2 N. D. 82, 49 N. W. Rep. 318. And it was clearly a wise and proper exercise of police power to so limit the sale. If all persons indiscriminately were permitted to keep and sell intoxicants for the enumerated lawful purposes it would be quite impossible, as all experience teaches, to prevent illegal sales. The statute increases the punishment for second and third offenses. This is urged as an objection to it, but no authority sustaining the objection is cited, nor do we find any. Such statutes are very common, and are universally upheld. Nor can we see that the fact that the increased punishment passes the arbitrary line fixed by the legislature between misdemeanors and felonies can in any manner change the principle. The writ must be discharged, and the relator remanded to the custody of the defendant, to be dealt with according to the terms of his commitment; and it is so ordered. All concur.
(55 N. W. Rep. 883.
Note.—For other cases upon the liquor law, see, State v. Swan, 1 N. D. 5; State v. Fraser, 1 N. D. 425; State v. Haas, 2 N. D. 202.
