The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1890-11-14
AN IMPORTANT DECISION
THAT WILL BRING HAPPINESS TO
THE PROHIBITIONIsTs.


Justice Field Holds That Crime and
Misery are Directly Attributable to the
Liquor Trafhc.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 1.-THE supreme
court of the United States, in an opinion
rendered by Justice Field in the case of P.
Crowley, chief of police of San Francisco.
appellent, VS.. Henry Christensen, reversed
the order of the United States circuit
court for the northern district of Califor-
| MIA, discharging Christensen on writ of
habeas corpus. This is q liquor license
case, and in its opinion the court broadly
lays doS certain fundamental principles
affecting the relation in which this busi-
ness and the laws OF the country stand to
each other. Christensen for several years
conducted retail liquor store, but in 1889
his application for renewal of his license
was refused by the police commissioners
of San Francisco, in whom municipal
ordinance vested discretion to grant or re-
fuse licenses for saloons, the refusal be-
ing based on the ground OF the bad repute
in which the place stood.
Christensen did business without a H.
cense, and was arrested. He sued ou, a
writ of habeas corpus, and the United
States circuit court ordered his discharge
from custody on the ground that the or
dinance made Christensen's business de-
pend upon the arbitrary will of others,
and in that respect denied to him the
equal protection OF the laws. In it's opin-
ion by Justice Field, the court says:
1t is undoubtedly true that it is the
right of every citizen to pursue any law
full business, subject to only such restric-
tions as are imposed upon all persons of
the same age, sex or condition, But the
possession and enjoyment of this right,
and indeed of all rights are subjecC to
such restrictions as may be deemed by the
governing authority of the country essen
tial to the safety, health and peace, good
order and morals of the community
Even liberty itself is not unrestricted Ii
cense to act according to ones own will
1t is only freedom from restraint under
conditions essential to the equal enjoy
ment of the same right by Others. 1t is
then
Liberty Regulated by Law.
The court says the regulations govern
4ing ali TIE various pursuits ur lire are
of the business, some regulations being
designed to lessen noise, others to protect
health, others to remove odors, and so on.
1t would hardly be necessary totsmention
this the court continues, were it not for the
position often taken and vehemently
pressed, that there is something wrong in
principle and Objectionable in similar re-
sLrictions when applied to the business of
selling by retail intoxicating liquors. 1t is
urged that as liquors are used as bever-
ages, and the injury following them,
if taken in excess, is voluntarily
inflicted and is confined to the
party offending, their sale should
I,> ,,,tt thot, nj RI hn nnfn inn,
being that what man shall drink, equally
with what he shall eat, is not properly
matter for legislation. There is in this
position an assumption of fact which
does not exist, that when the liquors arr
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 abase
ment which it creates. But. AS it leads to
neglect of business and waste of property
and general decentralization, it affects
those who are Immediately connected 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 apply
ing. The statistics of every state show a
greater amount of crime attributable to
this than from any other source. The sale
of such liquors in this way has therefore
been at all times considered the proper
subject of legislative regulation. For that
matter, their sale by the glass may be alb
solutely prohibited. 1t is question of
public expedience and public morality, land
not of federal law.
There is no Inherent right of citizen to
sell intoxicating liquors by retail; it is not
a privilege of a citizen of the United
States. In the prohibition or regulation
of the traffic discretion MAY be vested in
officers to decide to whom to grant and to
whom to refuse liquor licenses. The Off
GERS may not always exercise the power
conferred upon them with wisdom or
Justice to the parties affected.
But that Is matter which does not af-
feet the authority of the state, or one
which can be brought under the cogni-
zance of the courts of the United States
The court says that it does not perceive
that the ordinance under which the pris-
oner was arrested violates any provision
of the federal constitution of laws, and
that as to the state constitution and laws,
it is bound by the decision of the state SUI
preme court, that the ordinance does not
violate Them. Tne order dischargng the
prisoner from custody is therefore re-
versed, and the case remanded with direc-
tions to take other proceedings in con-