Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-02-09
BARRIERS TO BARS,
Some SnagS Against Which
License Applicants
ARE LIKELY TO STUMBLE.
A Number of Papers That Nay Need
Amendment.
JUST 1850 APPLICATIONS FILED

Where two or more children are made
sleep in the same bed, which is often the
case with families of moderate means, one
at least is .tolersbly certain, should he be
troubled with sensitive epidermis, to be
greatly annoyed BY the propensity of some
one Of his fellows to eat supper in bed, and
the resultant crumbs are as intensely tor
turing as would be colony Of heas. There
are some people who predict that the couches
of most applicants for license to SELF liquor
wholesale in this county will soon find
crumbs on their sheets, which will disturb
their repose
A reporter happening to fall upon some
petitions prepared by E. E. Cotton, Esq,
was struck by the difference between the
form made out and that of the generality of
those filed, and Mr.. Cotton was sought for
enlightenment. he stated that he had am
plifed the form of application to comply
with the requirements suggested by the spe-
cial act of 1872, as developed by Chief JUS
tice Paxson in his opinion on the cases of
Mary E. Pollard ct al, where it was held
that Judge White had erred in treating sp-
plicants for wholesale license the same as
those for retail.
NOT SUCH AN EASY JOB.
Since the decision in the case of Pollard,
ct al, i: has generally been thought that all
an applicant had to do was to file his sppli-
cation and rest on his oars, sure of a success
full issue, and on the face Of the returns it
looks somewhat that way. While the Court
in the absence of remonstrances may grant
licenses on the showing made in the form
provided, yet unless it sets forth that the
applicant is q citizen of the United States,
Is of good moral character and temperate
habits, discretion may be exercised. If these
averments are not set forth in the petition
the applicant has failed to make out prima
faoie case, and is left to the mercy of the
court and still further, and the remon-
STRANGE of an opponent.
The prepared form which most applicants
have filed does not contain all of these aver
ments and but few, it appears, have thought
of the necessity of supplying them. It is
supposed there will be great scramble this
week for amendments.
The following Is the light in which the
matter is received by the Supreme Court:
In the case of Mary E. Pollard, which
covered those of the L. II. Harris Drug
Company Joseph Fleming & Son, 7. D.
Casey & Co. and those of Joseph Einstein
and nine other bottlers the writs of certio-
rsri were based on the claim that the retail
act of May Is, 1887. was intended to restrain
the sale OF liquors, while the wholesale act
of May "A, 1887, was merely revenue act,
with no indication Of any intention to re-
strain the sale of liquor.
JUST WHAT Is MEANT.
The provision in the wholesale act of 1887,
that licenses shall be granted by the Court
of Quarter Sessions sin such manner as is
provided by existing laws. J." means, in the
case of Allegheny county, the local act of
April 8, 1872, which is not repealed by the
act of May "a, 1887, in e1-
press terms or by necessary implication,
so far as regards wholesale licenses,
excepting to the extent that one act is sup
piled by the other.
A citizen of the United States, of temper
ate habits and moral character, who pre-
sents his application in due form, and who
has complied with the requisites of the law,
''hss, prima fscie, right to license in the
absence, of anything on the record to impeach
such right, and it is the duty of the court
to grant it. If a remonstrsnce is filed, set
ting forth that the applicant is disqualified
for either of the three causes stated, it is the
duty OF the court to hear it, and if sustained
by evidence, to refuse license. The discre-
ton conferred upon the court in the
wholesale act of May "a, 1887, is
not the large discretion authorized by the
retail act of May 13 1887, but is confined to
the inquiry whether the applicant for
wholesale license is citizen OF the United |
States, of good moral character and of tenn
perate habits.
1t was further held that a wholesale L. |
cense is not granted for the convenience of |
q particular neighborhood, nor for the &C
commodation OF strangers or traYelers, nor |
does it matter where the place of business is |
located.
PARSONS PERTINENT POINTS.
The points made by Paxson, C. j., revers- |
ing the court below, were In brief: That
Mary E. Pollard's petition was regular; that |
the acts of May 13 and May "A, 1887, were in |
their objects essentially different; licenses |
shall be granted by the Court of Quarter
Sessions in such manner as is provided by |
existing laws, and that applications for
licenses may be heard by evidence, petition, |
remonstranee or counsel The discretion of
the court is deduced from the latter PROPOSE
tion. As preliminary to the discussion, ref
erence is made to that portion of the second
section which provides that licenses shall be
granted by the court t'in such manner as is
provided by existing laws" This Justice
Paxson held to be the special or local law of
April 8, 1872, applicable to Allegheny coun-
tT only
The act of May "a. 1887, contains no re-
pealing clause. The act of 1872 is not re-
pealed in express terms, or by necessary i'm
plicstion, so far as regards wholesale L.
censes, excepting to the extent that the one
act is supplied by the other. The wholesale
act of 1887 imposes no qualifications, not |
even requiring that applicants shall be eiti-
zens of the United States, or of good moral
character, or persons of temperate habits, so
then we must look to the act of 1872
ON THE FACE OF IT.
''It follows, =" says the Judge, "that a citi-
zen Of the United States, of temperate habits
and good character, who presents his appli-
cation for q wholesale license in due form.
and who has complied with the requisites Of
the law, has, prims faeie, q right to such
license. In the absence Of anything upon
the record to impeaeh such right, it is the
duty of the court to grant 1t. If a remon-
STRANGE is filed, setting forth that the appli.
cant is disqualified, for either of the causes
above stated, it is the duty of the Court to
hear the case, and if the remopstrance is
sustained by the evidence, TO refuse such
license"
From the above it would appear that
there can be no doubt that Mr.. Cotton's
precaution is timely and calculated to save
much trouble. Fortunately for them, ap-
plicants are not required to run the gauntlet
as to character that might have been re-