The Richmond palladium. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1855-1875, 1859-08-04
JOHN R. WILLIAMS,
The LIQUOR Law.

A liquor seller o: this city, Mr.. Grothous, wa:
few days since 6ned for selling glass Of liquor
II is understood that he done it for the purpose
testing the constitutionaiity of the liquor Law.
Rsfusing to pay the fine, he was committed. He
taken with writ of hdbeds co rpus before
jge Perkins with view of having him releas-
under the unconstitutionaty of the liquor
ng By which he was fined and committed An
,le argument was submitted, but the Judge,
Gter taking the matter under considera ton for
several days, remanded him back to custody, thus
ali ming the constitutionality Of the law. Mr..
Crothous has since paid his fine, and we hope
vii quit the business of selling liquor. lie, and
All Others may rest assured that they will be held
to a strict accountability under that law. The
following is the decision:
Joseph Grothous adult white male citizen,
convicted before Justice Of the Peace of
Wayne county, OF retailing without license and
committed He obtained writ of habeas cor
pms and claims to be discharged from his impris-
oumeBt on two grounds:
LIST, That the liquor law is unconstitutional
3D. Because he says that he applied for license
presented TO the Commissioners certificates of his
good moral character, offered to pay the amount
pres he'd for license and to execute q sufficient
bond &c, but that the Commissioners, neyerthe
les iefused him license.
an not prepared to say that the liquor law of
1888 is unconstitutional in any particular.
Under tie DECISION in Reed vs. the State, at
tie present term of ne Supreme Court, should
Lot feel at liberty to say that Homogeneous subjects
united in this law, or that it did not conform
TO It's title. 'Ete business Of retailing liquors in
small quantities. TO be drank upon the premises
in which they sre sold, has always been regarded
as tending to draw together idle persons in such
numbers and in such con1kpns, as might pro-
duce noise and tumult, PEN bs breaches of the
peace in short, nuisenCes; and. hence like shows
rope dancing exhibitions, billiard saloons &c, to
he subject to stringent regulations the part Of
the State, tending to prevent such evil
The power of regulation exists under the pres
ent constitution. AS a condition upon which
these pursuits may be follow we'd, license may be
reGuired
The statute is imperative that license shall be
granted TO every citizen Of this State upon CON-
pIiauce with certain conditions. The law is gen
eral and uniform. Such license will authorize
he person poss, ssing it to sell upon six days in
the week, and more. 1t does not extend to
Sunday and a sale on that day is illegal. But
every person who applies to the Commissioners
FIR license and complies, or offers to comply with
all the requirements Of the Law, is entitled IL
ceuse. The Commissioners are bound TO grant
Ia this case, the petitioner asserts that he did
comply and offered to comply with the law and
having done So, and been refused lcence, he
ont a license.
Perhaps though no opinion is given upon the
point if the facts asserted true, the position
assumed by the petitioner is correct. But where
and how is it to be determined whether the party
did really comply, and offer to comply with the
whole law? How is it to be ascertained whether
the Commissioners legally rejected his petition?
Perhaps it was his duty, when the Commissioners
rejected his application to appeal to the Circuit
Common Pleas Court II not, and the fact of
the refusal OF license, one which could avail
in prosecution for selling without license, it
should have been pleaded before the Justice -
Perhaps it was so pleaded in this case and not
proved. If so the conviction OF the defendant
right. And it may be observed certificates
would not be proof of character. The Commits
soners might require the testimony of witnesses.
1t is clear that this objection canrot be raised
uron writ Of habeas corpus. Tie law being
constitutional, the writ upon the conviction be
lore the Justice under which the officer holds the
petitioner in custody being regular, is sufficient
cause for the detention in custody.
The petitioner is remanded.