The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1882-07-23
PROHIBITION.
The New Liquor Law.

.
"ProUided, That where any NUM-
cipal corporation has the right to
prohibit the manufacture, sale and
otherwise dispOSing of spirituous,
vinous and malt liquors, nothing in
this act shall be SO construed as to
impair such right" Now, is this
not absO utely contradictory, i'm
practicable, unreasonable? Sec. l,
Of the same law, provides for a
general licensing of liquor selling
and wisely SO, for territory is a
creature Of circumstances, control
and Congressional manipulation /.
The parent, the United States, says
liquors an article of commerce
which. within my provinces |
l'crn e; tee parties are yet subject
to a territorial county, or city
tax and license, and the holding
Of license from me does not
bar prosecution against any non
holder of county or city license.
The legislature knowing they could
not "prOhibit." as a territory, what
their ere" sanctioned without I'M
lawful cJhtraventiOD, throw open
the door for licensing premiscuously.
Yet, possessing no power Of prOhib-
ition themselves, they proceed to say
in the same Sec. 10: "NO provision
of this act shall be so construed as
TO authorize any county court or
county officer to interfere with the
rights granted to municipal corpora
tons by their several charters
to license, tax, regulate, restrain and
prohibit the manufacture, selling,
etc, of vinOus, spirituous and matt
liquors" etc. Now, can the leglsla-
ture exempt an area of a county.
say four to six miles, 1.-The limits of
its corporation" from the provisions
of it's own law. Why not exempt
them from paying territorial and
county taxes? Why should not the
liquor dealer within the limits Of a
city bear a county license as
well as city one? But
can the city, a creature created
by the legislature. do that which
the creator does not dare to
do, viz: prohibit the manufacture
ing, selling. ETC., of spirituOuS
liquors ?" Is not such a provision a
snare, a deluSion?
have in my mind one county of
this territory possessing six city
corporations, five of which bear the
provisions to prohibit" ETC., in
their charters. One does not. This
one the county court looks after,
prosecutes, etc, for non-icense. The
county official is debarred from en-
tering these exempted "city limits, -
though he may see the liquor arrive
daily at the depot and forwarded to
the persons addressed. The liquor
is sold to the initiated, the city be-
ing debarred, from lack OF
good ordinances or unwill-
ingness from perilling their
revenue in liquor fight and
appealed cases, etc. l am told nc
less than i've persons sell liquor
surreptItiously. and if a difficulty
does get up and liquor is the basis
the county is asked to come in and
not bear US out, we fear.
One man a short time ago was
landed in the county Jail for six
months. to keep the peace towards
surreptitiOus city liquor seller
who had been carrying on the trade
for five years; and the man was to
be kept at the county cost for 81
per day for six months, because the
city would not prosecute. had nc
jail, etc. But this is not all. This
same county l wOt Of possesses
eight villages, with no village in
corporation, as l think should be
but they are under the protection
of the county. In one of those vii.
lagos say man applies for license
obtains it at a cost of $500 a year
hoping perhaps to drive a good
wholesale trade; but perhaps fol-
fear of something these surrepti-
lions liquor buyers and sellers will
not buy of him. He hears of liquor
consignmentS he finds himself ter
ribly undersold, because the surrep
titious seller pays no license to city
or county. There is hardly city
in this county l write of, but whar
liquor is sod, and in some of then
measurably open; yet there is nc
prosecution and no license, while
the one living outside of city mus
pay or be fined
A cider seller drives into a citv
with his juice expressed from ap
pies, when juice is exempted; tht
pure juice OF the grape must be ex
pressed and sold on the premises
see section 13-but the cider seller
with his juice well "sticked," sell,
promiscuouslv, regardless of age
color or previous condition, and uu
licensed as to city or county.
Why should not the territory de
mand its license Of liquor seller OF
peddler just the same? The United
/ States says you must pay me N,
license whether the city or county,
neglectS to or does get d license from
you. Why should not the territor,
| in all its domain demand and enforce
obedience to IT'S law regardless q
CITY limits? If the cities neglect *
additionally license, tax and regu
late the traffic, the territory has 90
its revenue to help sustain the law
paupers and insane, made SO in man,
cases by the liquor seller. l do no
believe in the farce Of prohibition
anywhere, but l believe the business,
should be licensed" F'repulstad;