Clearfield Republican. [volume] (Clearfield, Pa.) 1851-1937, 1875-11-24

wap not nscV'ssary Tor the accomnod.
4, 4 zion Of thv public aud the cntsrla ii,
mont u strahgcrs and travellers, BY
provisc 70 this act the exercise of di.
cretiou as 70 hs,neceaslty Of inns an
tavern~ IL confined 10 that giycn B.
tbs art Of usroh. 1884. y y ''ls,s. !, " Z
\ Again, on tbs nd Of March, 1851
the Courts are authorised 10 hsA
petitions and remonstraness, and 10 n
fuse tho licsnse whenever In tho opIp
ion Of the coart h is not nscsssar.
for the accommodation Of the publi
and the entertainment Of strangers an
travellers. ,sads sa ~ i s,.iis.1 q. d.
The act Of 1874, known as the Looa
Option law, did not repeal any prev,
Qua law, It merely suspended the lop
GRAFTON Of thc1icense law, for the tim,
being, in the counties which voted "nt
license.' When the act was rvpealet
by the first section Of the act Of Apri
IL, 1875, the former laws wcre agar
called into active operation in the nc
license counties, and wore then th.
rule throughout the State, unless they
were repealed by other portions of mi,
art
IN delivering the opinion Of the Su,
prcme Court IN Schlaudeckcr case, 20
sF.Smilh 203. Agncw J. ai,er stating
the several Acts Of Assembly on the
snbjcct ofliicense says NO subject
has been productive of more difference
Of opinion and practice than this in
the different indicial Districts in the
State. Some Judges holding II TO be
obligatory on the court to grant every
license whcrcthe applicant has brought
himself wi'hin the provisions Of the
law as to the terms of his application,
and others holding that they are not
bound TO grant any license whatsoever.
Clearly neither opinion is right; the
discretion which the courts exercise
being sound discretion upon the cir
cumstances of each case as it is present.
ed to the Court and not a general
opininion upon the propnety or i'm
propricty of granting licenses.r
lie cites the several Acts Of Assem-.
bly, from 1884 down TO 1879, and from
them deducts the conclusion that sit is
the duty of the Court to hear and dc.
termine each case on its evidence and
FACTS; TO ascertain the fitness Of tho
applicant and the necessity of the
honss for the public accommodation. !"
To be rightfnl Judgment it must be
exercised IN the particular case and
upon the facts and circumstances be.
fore the Court after they have been
heard and duly considered.
IL is noticeable that the new law
except in regard to the amount of the
license fec, and the amount and the
condition of the bonds required Of
applicants, makes no mention of a
single requisite necessary to the OBJ
tanning of a license to the citizen.
ship Of the applicant--thc filing and
publication and the contents Of the
petition-the certificate Of character,
and the the action 10 be taken by the
Court upon petition, circumstances
and evidence presented, and also in re-
gard to transfers and revocation of Ii.
ccnses, il is silent. Unless, therefore,
tho former laws upon these subjects
remain in force, there is nothing to
guide the practice of the Court, or
govern its decisions upon license ques.
tions.
1t is q well settled rule, that stat
nte can be repealed only by express
provisions of a subsequent law or by
necessary implication; and this can
only be when there is such repugnancy
between the new law and the old that
they cannot stand together. awhcn-
ever says J. c. Black, "two acts
may be made to stand together it is
the duty OF the Judge to give both
OF them full effect; even when they are
seemingly repugnant, they must, if
possible have such a construction that
one may not repeal the other, unless
the latter one contains negative words.
or the intention to repeal is manifest
by some ineligible form Of expression
Brown VS.. County Commissioners O.
Harris 20.
There are no words of appeal in the
act Of 1875, except as to the Local
Option law. The natural, if not
necessary inference therefore is, that
the Legislature intended Il to be auxili.
ary to, and in aid Of the purpose of the
old law. Instead Of evincing any in.
AZ ||