Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1889-06-29
THE Law LAID DOWN.
Continued from First Paas.

WHat uao becn salQ Lnab naQ tnls case peeu
brought here upon writ of eertiorari it would
necessarily have been reversed. In hisrespect
it differs widely from application for a retail
license and the reason is that in the latter in
stance the discretionary powers of the Court
are much broader. The license may be refused,
not only because the Court regards theappli-
cant as an unfit person to sell liquor, or II fit
that his house is not needed in the particular
nefghborhood for the accommodation OF strang-
ers and travellers. The present case, however,
is here upon an application for a mandamus
which involves considerations not referred to
in Pollard's case.
1t is perhaps fortunate that in the cases Of so
much magnitude, involving very large pecuni-
been prescribed by. the act of Assembly or
adopted by the courts The licensing OF whole
sale dealers has hesetefore been regarded SO
much as matter of course that but very few
cases have reached this Court under prior acts
of Assembly. In the meager reports of the one
or two cases which have reached us it is difh-
cult to gather the facts and the per curiam
opinions fail to show that the distinction De-
tween wholesale and retail dealers has ever
been called to our attention. We do not nnd
anywhere any allusion to the proper mode OF
procedure in the matter of applications for
When the application of the petitioner came
up for consideration in the court below there
was neither remoDstrance nor objection upon
There was no issue before the court. There
was no disputed question of fact for 1t to de-
cfde and the act of May "a 1887, does not
confer upon the Court of Quarter Sessions the
matters not properly before the court and in
no way connected with the petitioner right to
brewers license. As there was no issue be-
fore the courtit follows of necessity that there
Could Have Been no Legal Trial,
and as there were no disputed questions of
facts. there could have been no valid findings
Of facts. We might WELL therefore, without
ri Ioor md
Judges of the Quarter Sessions to the writ of
al 'ernative mandamus. That we may not seem
wanting in respect to them, Twill proceed to
its consideration.
to the writ: and If it discloses sufficient
ground to refuse the license we can go no
further. 1t follows that the common law rule
as the certainty of the return must be applied,
keeping this in view and also the fact that the
objections to the petitioners application must
be confined to the questions of-First, citizen
ship; second, temperate habits, and third, good
moral character. will briefly consider this re-
turn.
As preliminary the Judges say: Before de-
Gliding said application said Court deemed 1t to
be Its duty to determine whether the appli-
cants were citizens of the United States, of
temperate habits, of good moral character
and fit persons to receive a license.
The first three matters were proper sub
jects of inquiry. If there was objection
made upon either of these grounds it was the
plain duty of the Court to hear the evidence
and decide as to the part of the return have
ttalicised. 1t was a matter with which the
Court had nothing to do in the case Of an ap-
plicant for a wholesale license. They have
nothing to do with it because of the act of 24th
OF May confers no such power upon them. 1t
is Incorporating into the wholesale act a pro-
vision of the retairact.
The key to the whole difficulty, may perhaps,
be found in the assumption of a discretion of
wholesale license which is not found in the law
and which is applicable only TO the case OF re-
tailers. The fitness of a man to have whole
sale license depends upon his possessing the
three qualifications before mentioned, not upon
outside of them. 1t appears that at the hear
ing In the court below the main question was
as to the manufacture and sale of a mild form
of beer called aIn nbrosia.
side of the case. It has no bearing upon either
of the three qualifications required for
wholesale dealer, and at best refers to ram
bin bling inquiry not properly before IN tae Court Court
lied 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 appears
by the averment in the petition, and not spe-
officially contradicted in the return, contains
only little over per cent of alcohol. The re-
turn is moreover vague and unc rtain; we are
not told what false representations were made
by the company iu regard to the character OF
the beer, and mere adjectives are entirely out
of place in return to writ of alternative
mandamus.
Nor does this portion of the return allege a
violation of any law of the Commonwealth I
have dwelt upon it at greater length than was
necessary. for the reason that 1t had evidently
The return then proceeds: 1.-THE Court did find
(A) that the said company had conducted its
business during the year then expiring in vio-
lation of law. 1t did further find (B) that said
90 aaairr H.
license applied fsr and (C) that SO far as it was
possible for corporation to possess any moral
character. it did not possess good moral
character" |
portion of the return and for convenience 1
have divided them. AS to the first (A), what
law has the company violated in the conduct of
its business7 The return does not inform us.
olusion of law. The averment is SO vague that
it has no force whatever. In regard to the
second branch lB), have already said that the
fitness of the company to receive a license is
not In the discretion of the Court below unless
from one of the three causes of disqualification
before mentioned. A return generally that
that applicants not fit person to receive
brewers license without specifying Tor what
evasive. The return does say, however. that so
far as it was possible for corporation to
possess any moral character sit did not possess
q good moral character"
Corporations Cnn Have No Character.
1t is difficult to treat this proposition Sc
riously, yet it is the only matter in this return
which even gives color or legality to the re-
fusal of this license. That a corporation, an
intangible thing, an artificial being,
created by the law, can have character of
any kind, is a novel proposition. That the
learned Judges below so regarded 1t is evident
by the qualifications in their return. But the
corporation had officers and a board of di-
rectors If the Court below had found upon
evidence and SO returned that said officers and
directors were not of good moral character.
apprehend the return would have been suf-
ficient. -sis
At the same time doubt whether any one of
the learned Judges of the court below would
have been willing to put his name to a return
that tile officers and directors of this corpora
tion were respectively men of bad moral
character The return that the corporation
has not good moral character Is insensible.
There is nothing else in the return which re-
quires comment. Our conclusion is that it sets
forth no valid reason why the petitioner should
not be licensed. The former writ was alter
native. The writ of peremptory mandanu us is
now awarded. 1t win probably be found un-
to issue it.