Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-11-11
A LIQUOR LICENSE CASE.
Important Decision OF tho Cnite
States Surname Con-e

important Decision OF tho Cnited
States Supreme Court.
A decision Of more than ordinary iptercst
was handed down in the Supreme Court OF IN,
United States yesterday, as briefly mentioned
in The STAR, the opinion being rendered by
Justice Field The history of the case shows
that Henry Christensen sold intoxicating
liquor at retail for several years in the CITY Of
San Francisco, but that in 1889 his application
for renewal Of his license was refused by the
police commissioners Of the city because the
reputation of the saloon was not good. Chris
tiansen continued business, however, without a
license and was arrested His counsel sued
out a writ Of habeas corpus, and the United
States circuit court ordered Christiansen's
release on the ground that the ordinance under
which he was deprived Of his license made his
business depend upon the arbitrary will of
DINERS and. IN that respect, denied to him the
equal protection of the laws. OF this phase Of
the question the Supreme Court says:
LIBERTY NOT UNRESTRICTED LICENSE
ut is undoubtedly true that it is the right Of
every citizen to pursue any lawful business,
subject only to such restrictions as are imposed
upon all persons of the same age, sex or
condltion. But the possession and enjoyment
OF this right, and, indeed, Of all rights are
subject to such restrictions as may be deemed
by the governing authority of the country es-
sentiai to the safety, health, peace, good order
and morals OF the community. Even liberty
Itself Is not unrestricted license to act acc ord
ing to ones own will. It is only freedom from
restraint under conditions essential to the
equal enjoyment of the same right by other s.
1t Is then liberty regulated by law
The court says the regulations governing the
various pursuits of life are almost infinite,
varying with the nature of the business Some
regulations being designed to lessen noise,
owners to protect health, others to remove
odors, and 30 on. 1t would hardly be necessary
TO mention this, the court continues. were it
not tor the position often taken and vehe-
mently pressed, that there is something wrong
IN the principle and Objectionable in similar
restrictions when applied to the business of
selling by retail intoxicating liquors.
IL ID urged that as the liquors are used as a
beverage. and the injury following them if
taken IN excess is voluntarily inflicted and is
confined to the party offending then sale
should DO without restriction, the contention
being that what man shall drink, equally
with what he shall eat, is not properly matter
Ior legislation. On this point the court saws:
ON LIQUOR LEGISLATION.
''There is in this position an assumption of
fact which does not exist that when the liquors
are taken in excess the injuries are confined to
the parties offending. The injury, it is true
hrst falls upon him in his health, which the
habit undermines; in his morals which 1t
weakens, and in the reimbursement, which it
creates. But, as it leads to neglect Of business
and waste of property and general demoraiza-
ton, 1t affects those who are immediately con-
nected with and dependent upon him.
"By the general concurrence Of opinion Of
every civilized and Christian community there
are few sources of crime and misery to society
equal to the dram shop where Intoxicating
liquors IN small quantities to be drunk at the
time are sold indiscriminately to all parties ap-
plying. The statistics of every state show a
greater amount of crime attributable to this
than any other source. The sale of such liquors
III this way has therefore been, at all times con-
sidered a proper subject OF legislative regula-
ton. For that matter, their sale by the glass
may be absolutely prohibited. 1t is q question
OF public expediency aud public morality aud
not Of federal law.
NO INHERENT RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR.
'There is no inherent right OF citizen to sell
intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not privi-
iege OF citizen of a state or of a citizen of the
United States. In the prohibition or the regu-
latlon OF the traffic discretion may be vested in
ofhcers to decide to whom to grant and to
whom to refuse liquor licenses. The officers
may not always exercise the powers conferred
upon them with wisdom or justice to the part
les affected. But that is a matter which does
not affect the authority of the state or one
which can be brought under the cognlzauce of
tho courts OF the United States
The order discharglng the prisoner is there
fore reversed and the case remanded, with di-
rectlons to take further proceedings in CON-
formlty with the opinion of the court"