The aegis & intelligencer. [volume] (Bel Air, Md.) 1864-1923, 1875-06-18
COnstitutiOnality OF the Grand Jury
License Law.

OPINION OF THE COURT OF APPEALS.
The opinion of the Judges of the Court of
Appeals of Maryland, in the recent case of
Cahen VS.. A. L. jarrett, Clerk, rs to the con-
stitutionality of the act of 1874, requiring
the recommendation of the Grand Jury be-
fore licenses for sale of liquor can be granted,
is quite lengthy document, and fully dis.
cusses the questions raised in the trial of the
case. The operation of the law is attracting
so much attention in our county at this time
that the authoritative utterances ofthe Court
of Appeals upon the subject will of course be
looked at with interest. The court reviews,
by the light of analogous cases in this and
other States of the Union, the question ofthe
constitutionality Of the act of 1874, and ar
rives at the conclusion that the act is const-
tutional, and one fully within the scope of
legislative powers, in their right to legislate
upon the police regulations of the State.
The Judges say:
mo one can mistake the object of the leg
islature in passing the act in question. 1t
was to place restraint upon the indiscrimi-
nate grant of licenses, in order to avoid, as
far as possible, the evils flowing from the
great and constantly increasing number of
places for the retail of spirituous and fer
mented liquors. 1t was intended to keep
licenses out of the hands of those who shonld
be ascertained to be unfit to hold them
persons without moral restraint, and whose
establishments would likely become sources
of disorder, and nuisances to the surround
snn- tu m nj aru do oot
intended to discourage and prevent some of
the many evils and disasters to human life
which. have their origin in the traffic in ardent
spirits. And such being its object, it is O
police regulation in the strictest sense of
those terms"
Authorities are cited to sustain this point,
and it is left by the judges as proposition
now too firmly settled to be disturbed. AT.
ter the settlement of this main point, the
Judges go on further to say, that no more
appropriate body of men, acting under a
proper appreciation of their duties, could be
found to whom the Legislature should refer
the exercise of the discretion as to whom
licenses should be granted, than the Grand
Jury. The opinion in the case says:
"All license systems embody more or less
restraints and conditions, and in order that
the subject be kept within proper control,
and to avoid the abuse incident 10 IN indis.
criminate grant of licenses 1t may be neces-
sary that discretion be reposed in some one
or number of persons, and no body of in
dividuals could be more appropriate for the
exercise of such discretion, looking to the
peace and good order ofthe community, than
the grand jury. To them, as has been well
said, Is committed the preservation of the
peace of the county, the care of bringing to
light for examination, trial and punishment,
all violence, outrage, indecency and terror,
everything that may occasion danger, disturb.
ance, or dismay TO the citizens. They are
watchmen stationed by the laws to survey
the conduct OF their fellow citizens, and en-
quire where and by whom public authority
las been violated, or the laws infringed. /
VIII. Or. L sec. 454.
''This, however, like all other delegations of
power may be mistaken, or may be abused,
even by grand jury. 1t was clearly not
intended by the Legislature that there should
be an indiscriminate refusal of recommen-
dations for licenses. The object of the law,
as we have said, was to withhold licenses
from those who from character, or other
causes, were asccrtained TO be unfit TO receive
them, or where an evil would likely result
from their being granted.
an reference, however, to this, the grand
Jury should not exercise an arbitrary power
that violates the law. They act upon their
oath, and should In respect to this, as TO all
other matters given them In charge, make
diigent inquiry, and act with entire justice
and impartiality in all cases before them.