Butler citizen. [volume] (Butler, Pa.) 1877-1922, 1888-05-18
THE LICENSE QUESTION.
What the Supreme Court Says
--PoWer Of the Courts in the
Matter.
From Philadelphia Press of May s.

From Philadelphia Press of May 81
There was more disappointment
than ever for the liquor license apph-
cants yesterday. There bad been
many Of those already refused and
some of those who fear future rejec-
tion had looked to reversal of the
course of the License Court judges
by the Supreme Court of the State,
in the case brought bv Hon. George
w. Biddle and Ex-Judge Elcock for
writ of alternative mandamus in
behalf of Wallace g. Raudenbush,
who had failed in his petition for the
granting of license.
When the Supreme Court met in
the morning there were only four
judges on the bench-Messrs. Cor
don. Paxson, Green aud Williams.
There was. however, large attend
ance of lawyers within the bar, while
the enclosure for spectators was filled
with interested saloon keepers and
their friends. Judge Paxson handed
down the opinion refus ing the petit
tion.
TEXT OF THE OPINION
The full text OF the decision is as
follows:
The petition in this case sets forth
that the petitioner resides at No. Is
North Twelfth Street, in the Ninth
Ward, and has tor the last five years
carried on the business of selling Ii
quor at retail at the said house, hav-
ing been licensed to carry on business
in conformity with the laws bereto-
fore existing; that being desirous of
continuing the business he presented
his petition to the Court of Quarter
Sessions, in conformity with the
terms of the Act of Assembly of May
13. 1887, praying for license to sell
at retail various spirituous, vinous,
malt or brewed liquors for the period
of one year from June l. 1888; that
he has complied strictly aud in every
respect with said act. and that he
possesses all the qualifications requir-
ed thereby; that no evidence, petition
remonstrance or statement of counsel,
or of any other person whatever. be-
ing made or offered, or any objection
of any kind being made against him
or his said application. he was per
mitted to depart or was dismissed
from any further hearing; that on the
I'd day of April 1883, it was an
nounced by the said judges that the
application or petition had been re-
fused.
The petitioner prays this court that
the said judges of the said Court of
Quarter Sessions who heard his said
application and petition, and who re-
fused to grant the same, may be COM
manded first, by an alternative man
damus to show cause why the prayer
of said petition or application should
not be granted, and, secondly, by q
peremptory mandamus to do fully all
that is required to be done by the
said act and justice.
QUOTING THE LAW.
The seventh section of the Act OF
May l3, 1887. under which it is
claimed it is the duty of the Court of
Quarter Sessions to grant this license
is as follows: 1.-The said Court oi
Quarter Sessions shall hear petitions
from residents of the ward, borough
or township, in addition to that OF
the applicant, in favor of a remon'
strance against the application fol-
such license, and in all cases shall re-
) fuse the same whenever in the opin
!, ion of said Court, having due regard
to the number and character of the
> petitioner for and against such appli
, cation, such license is not necessary
for the accommodation Of the public
and entertainment of strangers or
travellers, or that the applicant or ap
plicants is or are not fit persons tx
whom such license should be granted
AID, upon sufficient cause being
shown, or proof being made to the
said Court, that the party holding 1
) license has violated any law of this
Commonwealth relating to the sale
:. of liquors, the Court of Quarter Ses
sions shall, upon notice being giver
. to the person go licensed, revoke tht
said license"
1t will be noticed that the petition
: does not aver that the judges of th'
: Court of Quarter Sessions have neg
lected or refused to act upon his peti
!, ton. His grievance is that they
i have acted and have refused him
license. He now asks that they shal
be compelled to show cause why hi
license should not be granted, and by
q peremptory mandamus "to do full,
; all that is required to be done b,
said act and Justice" We under
stand the prayer for relief to mea
s. that if the judges can not show tha
the petitioner has not complied will
the act of 1887, or that remoD
b strance has been filed or an objection
2 made by one or more citizens to thi
), granting of license to the petitione
l. it is the duty of this court to issue
e peremptory mandamus to the Judge
}, of the Quarter Sessions TO compe
l. them to grant such license. Th
8 petitioner assumes that he is entitle
1t as matter Of right to license upo
IT complying with the provisions of tn
Of act of 1887 in the absence of any a
8 legation that he is On improper pei
,r son to be 80 licensed.
u THE FALLACY OF THE CASE.
. . This is the fallacy which underlie
!. his case, as well as the able argumeI
~ of his learned counsel. He has \
- such absolute right, nor has any otl
70 er man in the common wealth. 1t
r not needed to review the license lei
~ islation of this State for the last ha
az az century. That was thoroughly dol
10 10 by Mr.. Justice Agnew in Schla
Ill decker VS. Marshall. 1t is sufficiel
~ to say that prior to the Act of lSs
=; the law was by no means uniform
10 40 there being many local acts in exi
- - tence, differing essentially from ea'
~ other. In Philadelphia any citiz'
81 81 could procure license upon payne
0u of the license fee to the Coun
Treasurer. In some counties licens
VI VI were granted by the Court of Gus
Iu e. ter Sessions when, in the opinion
n the Court, the public accommod ati'
~ roruirad than