The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1881-06-10
The LIQUOR CASE.
Arguments in the Case Concluded
and Question Submitted.


George A. Meears, for a writ Of
hGbeGS corpus, which involved the
question of the validity of the
Liquor ordinance of our city, did moi
come up the first thing on Thursday
morning, as generally anticipated
there being another case to dispose
Of However, arguments began in
the morning. and before the hour foI
recess. Mr.. Huey for the applicant
and Mr.. RaWlins for the city, had
concluded their arguments. At the
commencement each side was al
lowed an hour. Mr.. Huey opened
the case for the appellant, the
points in his brief being:
1t might be said to be an Open
question how far a territorial legis-
lature could go in granting to others
extraordinary powers; that the Or
dinance in question was passed by
the Council of Salt Lake City, Feb
ruary 18th, 1881; that the sole power
OF the charter was to regulate" the
business, and to license, regulate OF
restrain those engaged in it; and
that the ordinance was framed
solely to raise money"for the use and
benefit Of the city," This, as it was
beyond the grant of authority,
and is in the nature of a tax, is lille
gal and void the city has no right to
exact any fee in the nature of prohi-
bition; that the territory itself could
not do that; that the Congress and
legislature of the general govern
ment had always recognized the
traffic in liquor as legitimate,
and as a business protected at
the common law. 1t had been held
this did not interfere with pro-
hibitory legislation by states be-
cause local policy of that kind in
states is sovereign. Utah was not
sovereign. It had a grant to legislate
on rightful subjects Of legislation;
what had been recognized and ap-
proved by Congress, could not be
disproved and forbidden by the Gre
alton of its delegated authority.
The general policy Of the territory
was to permit the sale of liquors,
and not prohibit them. The business
being legal, Salt Lake City could
not by ordinance render it illegal. A
Of a general business was
contrary to the Constitution of the
United States. Yet the provision
for paying and exacting $1,000 had
been sustained, and had been prac.
ticed and paid as a monopoly.
The city might regulate the bust
ness; this was its sole power. Salt
Lake Ci4y is city of 10000 inhabit-
ants. In such a town one might
fairly, in the nature of humanity,
expect from thirty to forty saloons.
Now this fee, if collected, would
furnish fund Of over $4,000. Was
there any reason to suppose that
sum could be expended in regulating
the liquor business? Five thousand
dollars paid into the treasury would
be sum ample to furnish needed
and expense connected
with this trade. Mr.. Huey spoke
about half an hour.
He was followed by Jos. L. Raw
Inns, ESQ.,; for the city, the line of
whose argument was foreShadowed
OnThursday mOrning,and given with
sufficient detail to obviate any ne
cessity for further reference. Mr..
argument lasted for about
three-fOurthS of an hour, and was a
very able effort. When he conclu-
ded a recess was taken.
At a few minutes after two
o'clock, Mr.. Miner, who was then
entitled to fifteen minutes, arose and
made a brief argument, touching
more particularly the technical con-
of the law and of terms.
He said that according to the gen.
eral law the city could suppress the
liquor traffic, so long as such prohi-
bition was not contrary to the gen
eral provisions themselves, or the
Constitution of the United States;
it was specifically provided that
parties must not sell liquor under
any conditions, until they have first
obtained a license to do so. The
United States Supreme court had in
four different cases before it deci-
ded that the liquor traffic was a mat
ter for police regulation; taxes
could legitimately be imposed for the
purpose of police regulation, above
the amount required for the actual
cost and trouble of issuing the
license; it does not matter where the
money thus collected goes, so long
rs the city derives benefit there
from; and the money is not paid
unto the officer issuing the license
for the cost of issuing such license.
MIR. Miner spoke half an hour also.
Mr.. Brown then made the closing
He said that if he under
stood the arguments of MI. Rawlins
Alright, the city might entirely pro-
libit; and if such were the case,
hen the present exercise of power
vas not a restraint nor regulation.
The Charter of Salt Lake is estab- |
ished by the Territorial Legislature. |
t has never been approved or dis
by act of Congress. 1t |
nay be said to be an open question |
low far a Territorial Legislature
nay go in granting to others ex-
;raOrdinary powers. The Territorial |
Legislature is but itself delegated |
n special power existing only from |
he necessity of local government of |