The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1889-07-05
Ian AND DEMOCRAT. BLOOMsBURG COLUMBIA COUNTY PA1

for the refusal of the license it would
be impossible to review the action of
the lower court, however arbitrary or
Illegal It might have been and as TO
such matters quarter sessions Judge
would sit as absolute q despot as the
emperor Of China"
After regretting the failure of the
act TO preccribe a set form of practice
in such cases, he continues "a care
ful examination of the act leads us to
the conclusion that, in the absence of
any remonstrance or objection on the
record, it is the duty Of the court to
grant q wholesale license and the OBJ
jeotion must be limited to the three
disqualifications already alluded to.
Such remonstrance or bjection should
be in writing and placed on file, 50
that IL forms, with the petition, the
pleadings in the case. There is then
an issue of fact before the court to be
decided, as in other cases, upon the
evidence. There was neither remon
STRANGE nor objection upon the record
against the granting Of this license.
There was no issue hetore the court.
There was no disputed question Of fact
for 1t to decide, and the act does not
confer upon the court of quarter ses-
sions the pow of roying commission
to inquire as to matters not properly
before it, aud in no way connected
with the petitioners right to brewers
license. AS there was no issue before
the court, it follows that necessarily
there could have been no valid findings
of fact. We might well, therefore,
discard the entire return If the learned
judges of the court of quarter sessions
to the writ of alternative mandamus.
That we may not seem wanting in re-
spect to them l will proceed to its CON
sideration."
After stating the legal rule that such
returns are required to be most exact
in their language, and most full aud
precise on their statements of fact, for
the reason that they are not permitted
to be gainsaid, the chief justice contin-
ues keeping in view the fact that
the objections to the petitioners appi-
cation must be confined to the ques.
tions () citizenship, (2) temperate hap-
its, and (3) good moral character,
will briefly consider this return. As
preliminary the judges say: Before
deciding said application, said court
deemed it to be its duty to determine
whether the applicant was citizen of
the United States, of temperate habits
aud good moral character, and 6t
person to receive license. The first
three matters were proper subjects of
inquiry, but the fourth was a matter
with which the court had nothing to
do. They have nothing to do with it
because this act of the oath Of May
confers no such power upon them. 1t
is incorporating into the wholesalers
act a provision OF the retailers act.
The key to the whole difficulty may
perhaps be found in this assumption Of
a discretion which is not found in the
law, and is applicable only to the case
of retailers. The fitness of man to
have wholesale license depends upon
bis having the three qualifications be,
fore mentioned, not upon the opinion
of the court on other matters outside
of them
at appears that at the hearing in the
court below, the main question was as
TO the manufacture and sale of mild
form of beer called "Ambrosia." The
petitioner set ont testimony as to 1t at
some length. The court returns that
his statement is incomplete, inaccurate
and misleading, but as it fails to show
in what respect the return is clearly in
sufficient. The return then further
states: The court did find from the
evidence that during the year of its
license then about to expire, the com.
psny, through its chief executive Off
GERS, charged with the conduct of its
business, had caused TO be brewed an
intoxicating malt liquor, for the pur-
pose of selling the same TO unlicensed
dealers ll the city Of Philadelphia, to
be by the latter again sold in this city,
in violation of the laws of this COM
mOnwealth; that said Intoxicating malt
liquor, thus brewed, had been sold by
the company to numerous unlicensed
dealers in the expectation that the same
would be sold by them in this city in
viola len of law; that through its said
officers. said company by false repre-
sentations as to the character Of SAID
liquor, had induced divers unlicensed
dealers TO purchase the same from it;
and that said liquor thus purct ased had
been sold in the city of Philadelphia
by said unlicensed dealers. 1t is to be
observed that this return is entirely
outside Of the case 1t had no bearing
upon either of the three qualifications
required of a wholesale dealer, and
beat refers to rambling inquiry not
properly before court. The license
which the company held, authorized
them to manufacture and sell beer to
any person who was willing to buy,
licensed or unlicensed, and it must not
be forgotten that the particular beer
referred to was ambrosia, which ap-
pears to contain only little over one
per cent. of alcohol. The return is,
moreover, vague and uncertain; we are
not told what false representations
were made by the company in regard
TO the character of the beer, and mere
adjectives are entirely out of place in
a return to writ of alternative man
damus. Nor does this portion of the
return allege violation of any law of
this common wealth. | have dwelt un-