Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-11-24
THE RECENT LICENSE DECISION.


THE RECENT LICENSE DECISION.
The full text of the recent decision Of
the Supreme Court of the United States in
the San Francisco license case is at hand
The opinion by Mr, Justice Field, and in
which the full bench concurs, substantially
holds as was set out in the RECORD UNION
some ten days ago.
The decision of the Court is, in brief,
that communities in California may make
and enforce within their limits local, po-
lice and sanitary regulations, not in con-
fict with general laws, and that commit
ting to police or other local Commission
the discretionary power to refuse or to
grant license to carry on a business that
is the proper subject of regulation, is with
in the police powers of city or town.
But the most interesting portion of the
opinion is that in which the Court takes
occasion to remove what it says is an er-
roneous impression that obtains-that is,
that the selling Of liquors is specially
lined at in license regulation that there
is something wrong in principle and OBJ
jectionable when restrictions or regulations
imposed upon other businesses are applied
to the selling of liquors by retail. The
Court says on this point, and dwells upon
it with emphasis;
1t is the right of every citizen to pursue any
lawful trade or business, under such restrictions
as are imposed upon ali persons of the same
age, sex and condition. But the possession and
enjoyment of all rights are subject to such rea-
sonable conditions as may be deemed by the
governing authority of the country essential to
the safety, health, peace, good order and morals
of the community. Even liberty itself, the
greatest of allrightS, is not unrestricted license
to act according to ones own will. 1t is only
freedom from restraint under conditions essen
tial TO the equal enjoyment of the same right by
others. II is then liberty regulated by law The
right to acquire, enjoy, and dispose OF property
is declared in the Constitutions OF several States
TO be one of the inalienable rights OF man. But
this declaration is not held 10 preclude the Leg
islature OF any State from passing laws respect
ing the acquisition, enjoyment and disposition
OF property. Some occupations by the noise
made in their pursuit, some by the odors they
engender, and some by the dangers accompany
ing them. require regulations as to the locality
in which they shall be conducted. Some by the
dangerous character of the articles used, manu-
featured, or sold require. also, special qualfea-
tions in the parties permitted TO use, manu-
facture, or sell them. All this is but common
knowledge Il is urged that, as the liquors are
used as beverage, and the injury following
them, If taken in excess, is voluntarily inflicted
aud IS confined 10 the party offending, their sale
should be without restrictions, the contention
being that what a man shall drink, equally
with what he shall eat, is not properly matter
for legislation. There is in this position an as.
sumption of fact which does not exist, that
when the liquors are taken il excess the in
juries are confined 10 the party offending. The
injury it is true, first falls upon him in his
health which the habit undermines: in his
morals, which it weekens; and in the self
abasement which it creates. But, as 1t leads to
neglect OF business and waste of property and
general decentralization. It affects those Who are
Immediately connected with and dependent
upon him.
The Court then proceeds to say that the
sale of liquors at all times has been, and
by the Courts of every State considered
the proper subject of legislative regulation.
Not only may a license be exacted from
the seller, but restrictictions may be i'm
posed also as to the class OF persons to
whom such sale may be made, the hours
and days in which the sale may take place
and even the sale may be prohibited and
license refused. In other words, it is a
question Of public expedienoy and public
morality, and not of Federal law. There
is no inherent right to sell liquors by re-
tail, says the Court; it is not a privilege of
a citizen, and it may therefore be per-
mitted under conditions or prohibited, and
the manner and extent Of regulation rest
in the discretion of the governing author
ity, which may vest it in such officers as it
deems proper, GAS in many other cases,
the officers may not always exercise the
power conferred upon them with wisdom
or justice to the parties affected But that
is a matter which does not affect the au-
thority of the State, or one which can be
brought under the cognizance Of the Courts
of the United States
This decision is therefore sweeping and
so emphatic that it must be taken as finally
nd for all time settling the question of
the power Of regulation and the rights of
communities to restrict or enlarge the IL
cenSe to sell liquor, or to refuse TO issue 1t
at all, or to attach to it conditions, for vio-
lation Of which the permit may be for
feited, provided always, Of course, that the
discretion thus given to communities is
not abused and operates only to the con-
servation of the peace, order, health, NOR
ais and well-being of the community.
The decision clears away all sophistry,
all confusing arguments concerning rights
under Federal and State authority to con-
duct businesses Of many classes, and all the
ingenious logic that has been invoked to
maintain the claim of inherent right to
conduct the liquor or any other business
without interference by the State, in the
exercise of local, police and sanitary regu
IatinC movers.