Bismarck weekly tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1943, 1890-11-21
sioner, and under each successor from
1885 down to date-he now being with
Haggarty. in South Dakota.
THE LATEST LIQUOR DECISION.

HI LATEST LIQUOR DECISION.
By the time that the supreme court of
the United States has finished the con-
of the prohibition, license and
original package cases, which have been
coming before 1t in such numbers of late
years, says Bradstreets, the relations of
whether state or national,
to the liquor traffic will have been pretty
exclusively defined. The decisions
rendered will form a body of interpreter
ton which will take rank with the most
notable series of constructions of the
constitution. The latest of these de-
cisions was rendered on Monday last,
and involves the important questions of
the right Of the citizen to engage in bust
ness and the extent and nature of the
regulation which government may i'm
pose in relation thereto. It appeared in
this case that one Christensen, who had
for some years conducted a retail liquor
store in San Francisco, applied for a re-
newal of his license in 1889, but his ap-
plication was denied by the police COM
missioners of the city, in whom the dis
erection to grant or refuse licenses for sa-
looms was vested by a municipal ordi.
nance. The ground of refusal was the
bad repute of the saloon. Christensen
%thereupon continued to do business with
out a license and was arrested, but was
discharged by the United States circuit
court on the ground that the ordinance
in question was unconstitutional, since
it made the granting of a license depend
ent upon the arbitrary consent of a GER
tain designated number of persons.
This decision has now been overruled by
the court of last resort.
In stating the grounds for it's decision,
the court says that it is undoubtedly true
that it is the right of every citizen to pur-
sue any lawful business, subject only to
such restrictions as are imposed upon all
persons of the same age, sex or condi-
ton, but that the possession and enjoy
ment of this right, and, indeed, of all
rights, are subject to such restrictions as
may be deemed by the governing author
1ty essential to the safety, health, peace,
and good morals of the community. Even
liberty itself, the court says, is not unre-
strlcted license to act according to ones
own will, but is only freedom from re-
straint under conditions essential to the
enjoyment of the same right by others,
Regulations of the liquor traffic are only
a part of a great body of rules varying
with the nature of the businesses egu
lated, and their validity is to be decided
on like general principles. Continuing,
the court says:
1t is urged that, as the liquors are used
as a beverage and the injury following
them II taken in excess is voluntarily in.
hlcted and is confined to the party offend:
ing, their sale should be without restric-
tons, the contention being that what a
snail eat is not properly matter for legisla-
ton.
There is in this position an assumption
or a fact which does not exist, that when,
the liquors are taken in excess the Injuries
are confined to the party offending. The
injury: it is true, first falls upon him in his
health, which the habit undermines: in his
morals, which it weakenS, and in the self
abaGement which it creates. But. as If
leads to neglect of business and waste of
property and general decentralization If af-
fects those who are Immediately connected
with and dependent upon him. y X x <
Inc sale OF such liquors in this way Tin
SINAI! quantities to be drunk at the time
mas therefore been at all times considered
the proper subject of legislative regulation.
Fol that matter, their sale by the glass
may be absolutely prohibited. It is a dues
ton of public %eXpediency and public NOR
atty and not of FEDERAL law.
There is no inherent right of a citizen To
sell Intoxicating liquors by retail: if is not
aprlVllege OF q citizen of the state or OF a
cit!zen OF the United States. In the prohi-
Dltlon or regulation Of tine traffic discretion
may De vested in officers to decide to whom
10 grant and to whom to refuse liquor Ii
cehSes. The officers may not always exer-
else the power conferred upon them with
wisdom or justice to the parties affected.
put that is a matter which does not affect
the authority OF the state, or one which
can De brought under the cogniz ,nce of
the courts OF the United States.
This decision is, it will be seen, an en-
phatlc affirmation of the right of the state
and of municipalities to control the sale
OF liquor by the exercise of the licensing
power.