Morning journal and courier., 1889-01-21
THE LICENSE LAW.

The County CommIssioaers and the
 Water Street Lumber Dealers-What
 are Suitable Persons and Places
 Within the Meaning of the Law.
 To the Editor of the JOURNAL AND COURIER:
 An evening paper criticises the recent &C., tion of the county commissioners in refusing to license saloon on the corner of Brewery and Water streets in this city, submitting that it looked to the applicant as if the com missioners were taking an undue interest in the business affairs of the Water street lum- Der dealers. If the report of this case pubs lished in an earlier issue of this same paper was correct many of the leading firms in the locality had petitioned the commissioners to refuse the license on the ground that sa- loon there would be unsuitable, and would prove positive injury to their property and business, the evidence of the witnesses for the applicant being confined to testimony de. signed to show that the applicant was suit able person and had conducted an orderly saloon on Grand avenue. Now, whatever may be our private opinion as to general liz qaor legislation, our license law prcseribes one simple rule for the guidance of the com- naissioners in considering cases of this char
 aeter. They to license Equitable per- sons' to sell intoxicating liquors in 'tsuita- ble places" in towns which have voted for li-
 cense. From the standpoint of the saloon
 keeper, possibly the most suitable place for
 saloon is that place where the most liquor
 can be conveniently sold, including of course
 the immediate vicinity of manufactories, car
 shops, lumber yards and other places where
 many laborers are employed. Many fancy
 that they have an inborn right to sell intoxi-
 cants protected by constitutional guaranty.
 By such a rejection of an application is con-
 sidered as an infringement of personal rights.
 p,,H klnC of %no jSalC Cto%a
 has repeatedly affirmed that the States have
 the right, under their general police power,
 to regulate and even to prohibit the traf6c in intoxicants on the ground that the individu- al State may regard their use as injurious to
 public morals, public safety or public pros perity. A careful examination of liquor legislation in this State demonstrates that this State has ever thus regarded it, and also shows that not until the passage of the 'lo-
 cal option," or license law, in 1872 did the
 drinking saloon ever exist as legal institu- ton in the State of Connecticut. From the earliest history of our commonwealth the
 law never sanctioned the sale of liquor 70 be who were licensed to keep regular houses of entertainment for transient guests. That the law was disregarded, and that many li- censed ''retailers" of liquor did allow their stores to become virtually drinking saloons, is not questioned, but the laws of our State
 
 recognition of the drinking saloon prior to 1879.
 After trial of prohibition from 1854 to 1872 local option law was enacted, which with many subsequent amendments is our law to-day. Throughout all the sections of this license law it is very apparent that the sale of spirituous liquor is regarded by the legislature e dangerous business, since it surrounds it with the most careful safe guards. Thus the written application to the county commissioners, asking for license to sell intoxicants, must be endorsed by five
 selves licensed dealers, and who have not
 signed any other applications; the application must specify the particular building in which liquors are to be sold there must be no di- rect means of communication between 8 dwelling house and saloon, and if the building is within two hundred feet of the premises of church edifce or public school house the precise distance must be stated in the application. This application has to be submitted to the town clerk, and after being properly endorsed, by him transmitted to the county commissioners and copy there of advertised on the sign post or in a news paper published in the town. This publici- ty is designed to bring it to the attention of all the residents in the town, and thus give them an opportunity to show, if they wish, why the applicant or the situation of the proposed saloon is unsuitable, provision be- ing made for hearings before the commis- sioners whenever any citizen has filed any objection to tEe application: So much for 8 few of the numerous restrictions attending the issuing of licenses under our statute. And now 6 word about the interpretation of this law by the highest court in our State. The nature of licenses received extended at tention in a case brought by one Charles La Croix against the County Commissioners of Fairfield County, and decided by our Su- preme court in 1882. Licenses" say the court, "have neither tho quality of con- tract nor of property, but are merely tempo rary permits to do what otherwise would be an offense at the common law. They form portion of the internal police system of the State and are issued in the exercise of its police powers" In the light of this opin- | ion, coming not from a temperance organi- zation, but from the highest judicial author | ity in our State, much of the current criti- | cism of honest effort to enforce our license | law appears as shallow as it is untrue. From | the standpoint then of the law itself, rather l than from that of the man who desires to traffic in intoxicants for his own gain, suits- | bility of person and place are seen to be not of triding, but of the utmost importance. | As to suitability of person, there is little ! dispute that one who would sell to drum ! kards or minors, after hours or on Sunday,
 or in violation of any of the express provi- l sions of the license law, Is an unsuitable person to receive license. The license law as originally enacted in 1872 only required | the person to be suitable, but in this shape ! it was found to be inadequate, since in many cases the situation of the premises was ob- \ viously unsuitable for saloon purposes, TO
 matter how suitable the applicant might be. 1 To remedy this defect in the law our 1egis- l lature in 1881, by express enactment, intro. ducsd the words "suitable place" into the
 statute. Thus amended it is clear that suit- ! ability of person can never render the place
 suitable, since, to use the language of Jus l tice Loomis, who delivered the opinion of the Supreme court in case brought by one Michael Eaters against the County Commis-
 sioners of Litchfeld County, also decided in 1882, "both the person and the place must be suitable"
 | If it be asked, 'sWhat is suitable placer it may be said to be much easier to indicate 1 what is not suitable. The law itself inti mates that @ saloon had better not be in close proximity to church or school, and it needs little argument to show that the prosperity
 of manufacturing establishments is intimate, ly dependent on the sobriety of it's employees | These are facts which county commission 1 CTS are bound to take notice of if they ap
 preeiate the responsibility of their position
 and the spirit and letter of our law. Fur
 thermore this is a question which has en
 gagged the attention of the commissioner
 outside of our own county, for 1t is but
 few weeks since 1t was reported through tn
 | press that as a result of the united and per
 l sistent action of the proprietors of the larg l factories situated in that large section of tn city of Hartford bounded by Farmingtol l, avenue, Broad street, Capitol avenue an'