The State Director of Liquor Control has no authority to deny a license to a person to sell intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating beer under Section 311.060, RSMo and 312.040, RSMo, because such person has been convicted of violating a city ordinance relating to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor or nonintoxicating beer.

L10UOH CONTROL: The State Director of Lirmor Control has no authority to deny a license t o a person to sell intoxicatin~ ltnuo~ or nonintoxicatin~ beer under ~ectjon 311.060 , 11S',7o and 312 . 040, HSI·1o. be- cause such nerson has been convicted of violatin~ a city ordinance rel atin~ to the manufacture or s~le of intoxi- catin~ liauor or nonintoxicatinr beer. INTOXICATING LIQUOR: ~ONINTOXICATING BEER : LICENSES : OPDHOU NO . 27 Febr uar y 25, 1969 -~ ~ I L £ o ~onorab le Harrv Wi ~~ins~ Supervisor State Deoartment of Liquor Control Broadway State Office Buildin~ Jefferson City, Missouri 65101 J7 Dear (!fr . Wig;gins: This is in resnonse to your reauest for an opinion from this office which in oart states as follows: "Section 311. 060, Revised Statutes of I•1issouri, deals with the qualifications reauired of ner- sons seekin~ licenses under the intoxicatin~ liquor laws and Section 312 . 040 deals with a~ ­ plications under the nonintoxicatin~ beer laws . Each section contains identical lan~ua ~e reRard- inp.: convictions : ' No 9erson shall be ~ranted a license hereunder ... who has been convicted, since ratification of the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of t he United States, of a violation of anv law applicable to the manufacture or sale of intoxicatin ~ li~uor (or non- intoxicating beer) . • . ' "The question arises whether the above section applies to conviction in municipal or city courts where violations of municinal statutes and/or ordinances are involved. 'l'here are cases where concurrent jur isdiction is involved and where local authorities wish to proceed on cases they have investigated by filinp.: the charp.:es in the munici~al cour ts . Honorable Harry Wi~~ins "Since the statute soecifically anolies to 'any law ' I would request your official legal opinion on this question." 'rhe manufacture or sale of intoxicatin~ liquor is ~overncct o~ Chapter 311, RSMo. Section 311.050 makes it unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to manufacture or sell intoxicating liquor in any quantity without takin~ out a license . Section 311.060 provides in part : "1. No person shall be granted a license here- under unless such person is of good moral character and a qualified ler-al voter and a taxpayin~ citizen of the county, town, city or village , nor shall any corporation be granted a license hereunder unless the managing officer of such corporation is of good moral character and a qualified legal voter and taxpayin~ citizen of the county, town, city or villa~e· and no person shall be granted a license or permit hereunder whose license as such dealer has been revoked, or \'Tho has been convicted, since the ratification of the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or a violation of the provisions of any law applicable to the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor, or who employs in his business as such dealer, any person whose license has been revoked or who has been con- victed of violatin ~ such law since the date aforesaid ; * * *" Section 311.220 provides in part that cities may char~e for licenses issued and provides for the collection of the fee and makes and enforces ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of all intoxicating liquors within their limits and provides for penalties for the violation of such ordinances not inconsistent with the provisions of Chapter 311, RSMo. Section 311 . 880, RSMo, provides that it shall be a misdemeanor for any person to violate the provisions of Chapter 311, nsr-1o . Chapter 312, RSMo, governs t he manufacture and sale of non- intoxicating beer. Section 312.040 provides in part: "No person shall be granted a permit or license hereunder unless such person is of good moral character and a qualified legal voter and a taxpaying citizen of the county, town, city or village nor shall any corporation be granted a permit or license hereunder unless the managing - 2- llonorable Jl:=trry \·.'1 .. "(l'ins offtccr of sucn cornoration is of roorl morRl character and a qualified lcaal voter and tnx- na?lnr: c:t.ti?:en of the countv ·' to·11n cJ.tu or villa~e and no person shall be ~ranted a permit or license hereunder whose nermit or license as sue~ dealer has been r evoked, or. who has been convicted, since th ~ r etifica- tion of the twenty-first amendment to the Constitution of the United States, or a violation of the provisions of anv law an- olicahlc to the manufacture or snl0 of intoxicatin~ liquor or nonintoxicatin~ b~P.r, or •tlho emnloys in his business as such dea.ler; any person \·lhose permit or license has he en revoked or who has been convicted of violatin~ such lai·T since the date aforesaid·* * *" Section 312 . 140, RSr--1o , provides that cities may chA.r~e for licenses for the sale of nonintoxicatin(l' beer within its limits ~nd makes and enforces ordinances for the re~ulation and control of t he sale of nonintoxicating beer within their linits not incon- sistent with the provisions of Chapter 312, RS:~o and provides nenalties for their violation. Section 312.500, RSMo, provides that it shall be a misdemeanor for any oerson to violate the provisions of Chanter 312, RS ~o . The question submitted is whether a person violatin~ a citv ordinance, enacted by the city to re ~ulate and control the sale of intoxicatin~ liquor and nonintoxicating beer, comes i~ithin the nrovisions of Section 311.060 and Section 312.040, supra, \oJhich oro- hi bit the Su~ervisor of Liquor Control from issuin~ a license to a person who has been convicted of any law apnlicable to the manu- facture and sale of intoxicatin~ liouor or nonintoxicatin~ beer . In substance the auestion is whether the words "any law" as used in these statutes include a municina.l ordinance. The orimary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the leeislature. Kasten v . Guth, 375 S.W. 2d 110 . In 53 C.J.S., Licenses, para~raph 13(b), the rule of construction of statutes and ordinances re~ardin~ licenses is stated in part as follows: "Statutes and ordinances :trrmosin~ licenses and business taxes are generally to be construed liberally in favor of the citizen and strictly a~ainst the government, whether state or muni- cipal, especially where they provide oenalties for their violation . Accordingly , if the en- actment is not clear and positive in its terms, - 3- or if it i3 reasonably onen to different lnter- cretations throu~h the indefiniteness of ita orovisions, every doubt as to const:rncticm Must be resolved in favor of the one a~a1nst whom the enactment is sou~ht to be apnlied." It is our vie\·J that the statutes uncter consi<'leration, since the" orovide for a penalty for the violation, should be strictly co~ntrued a~ain st the ~overnment and in favor of t he inctividual. In \1Terner v . Pioneer Cooperan:e Comnany, 155 s . \•1 . 2d 319, the St . Loui s Court of Anneals construed a statute re~ardln~ Worl~en ' s Com- pensation which provides as follows: "* * *' \!Jhere the in1ury is causP.d by the failure of the em~loye r to com~lv with any statute in this state, or any la\'lful orrler of t he commission, the co~nensation and death benefit ry~ovid~d ror under this chanter shall be increased fi~teen per cent. '" The City of St. Louis had enacted an ordinance in re~ard to safety valves on a boiler with which the emoloyer had not complied. In discussing the meanin~ of the statute, the court stated, l.c. 324, paragraph 8- 9: "He are of the further opinion tha.t the Ordinance of the City of St . Louis could in no event have any apolication to the provisions of Section 3301, R.S.l929, now 3691, R. S. l 939, which pro- vides for a penalty for failure to ' comply with any statute in this state .' Re~ardless of what may be the technical meaning of the words ' stat - ute' and 'ordinance ' as used in other jurisdic- tions, when used in our State they have a definite and distinct meanin~ to both lawyer and lavrnan ; a statute being a law enacted by the State Le~ ­ islature, and an ordinance being a by- law passed or ordained by a city council and under authority of a statute givin~ it the ri~ht to pass such ordinance . The penalty provision could only refer to the failure of an emoloyer to comnly with a statute in and of the State . Any other construction would lead to the anomalous situa- tion of penalizing an employer en~aged in business in a city which has an ordinance such as the one here relied upon, whereas other emoloyers in the State would not be penalizied for orecisely the same thing. We think the penalty was desi~ned to apnly to a failure to comply with statutory law of the State." -4- ~i onorable Harry \'Jirrgins In State ex rel fkKittrick v . Missouri Public Servi ce Commission, 175 S .W. 2d 857, the Supreme Court helrl the constitutional provi- sion that the Attorney General shall perform such duties as may he prescribed by "law" means statutes enacted by the leP;islature. The violation of a city ordinance is not a cri~e in the con- stitutional sense nor a misdemeanor under our criminal code. Ci ty of Ava v . Yost , 375 S .W. 2d 88~; Marshall v . Kansas City, 355 S. W. 2d 877. Violations of municipal police rer;ulations are not "crimes." Delaney v . Police Court of Kansas City, 167 Mo. 667, 67 S.W. 589. We believe that the \ITords "any law" as used in the above statutes do not include a city ordinance because the le~i slature, in enactinp:: this statute, did not intend that the words "any law" include city ordinances . We believe the word "latt" as used applies only to state and federal statutes . The statutes, referred to above, that ~ive the municipality authority to enact ordinances for the regulation and control of the sale of intoxicatin~ liquor and nonintoxicatin~ beer expressly orovide that the city may provide penalties for their violation. We do not believe that it was in- tended that a violation of such ordinances should result in a denial of the issuance of a license by the Director of Liquor Control. CONCLUSION It is the opinion of this department that the State Director of Liouor Control has no authority to deny a license to a person to sell intoxicatin~ liquor or nonintoxicatin~ beer under Secti on 311.060, RSMo and 312.040, RSMo, because such oerson has been con- victed of violating a city ordinance relatincr to the manufacture or sale of intoxicatin~ liquor or nonjntoxicatin~ beer. The fore~oing opinion, which I hereby apnrove, was prepar ed by my Assistant, Moody f1ansur. OHN C. DANFORTH Attorney General - 5-