Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-04-30
HOW CAN THEY SELL9

T. nj. Marshall, Major Brown and Other At
torneys Know of No Legal Disposal of
Goods for Refused DeaIers-OhiOs or
Auction, the Alternatives.
"What will become of our stock on
hand?" is the paramount question of the
refused wholesaler and retailer in liquors
Although Judge White intimated on the
bench that some provision would be made
for these luckless ones, it does not follow
that they can consistently dispose of their
goods after May l, without being amenable to
the law. There have been some very earnest
endeavors on the part of refused licensees to
''get shy of their Stock" but many will have
found this impossible ere the dire davning of
tomorrow. Many thousands of dollars in
liquor are at stake, and the question is a very
potent one. considering the damaging contin-
gencies arising from the refusal of those whose
every cent is invested in their stock and the
difficulty found in disposiug of it.
A DISPATCH writer inquired into the legal
ity of selling without license this branded"
(by Judge White) stuff, and the results of his
researches are as follows:
Hon. Thomas M. Marshall replied, in answer
to the question, Have the refused wholesalers
and retailers any subterfuge by which they can
dispose of their goods in the city after. May 1?'
NO RIGHT TO SELL AT ALL.
'No, sir; no more than you have. If they do
they are violating the law just the same as an
unlicensed traficker of liquor, and are in
jeopardy as much as anyone who violates the
law. The only way I can see how they can
realize anything on their stock is to put it In
the hands of an auctioneer, who is vested in
the right by his license to sell anything from
pair OF pants to house and lot in public
mart This they will hardly resort to, as their
liquors would be subject to great sacrifice
under the hammer of an auctioneer."
Mr.. John G. Shoemaker, who has been inter-
ested in the late License Court in behalf of his
clientele corroborated the above statement,
adding, however, that there was some little
consolation in the fact that Pennsylvania was
not the only State in the Union, and the late
license revolution here would prove that
westward, the course of 1icklre' takes its
way" This implies that Ohio is the Oklahoma
of our unlucky liquor men.
Mr.. John Lambie was approached, and he adj
mltted that he had not paid enough attention
to the matter in question to venture an opin.
ion; 'but," added he, whats the matter with
some other Statef
Mr.. P. c. Knox was engaged, but one of the
lawyers in the office said that he had understood
he promised the liquor men a chance to dispose
OF their goods on hand. ITO sell without
license would of course be a violation" said
ne, "but the foregoing was my impression of
the matter, as learned through the papers,"
INTERSTATE SALES ONLY.
Major A. M. Brown was also accosted by the
reporter, to whom the same question was put.
"Well," !" said he, II have not looked thorough
ly into the matter; but my opinion, from
legal standpoint, is that the refused peoples
only recourse is to sell it out of the State. Or,
perhaps, they can place it in the hands of an
agent who has license. Icannot see that Judge
Mnite mas the power to make provision by
which any man refused can sell liouor after