The morning news., 1890-11-11
RUM SHOPS AND THELAW
STATES HAVE THE RIGHT TO REGU-
LATE THE TRAFFIC.

looms Considered Disreputable-The
Erroneous Basis on Which Liquor
Men Base Their Claim to Exemption
from Regulation.
WASHINGTON, Nov. 10.-The supreme
court of the United States in an opinion
rendered by Justice Field to-day in the
case of P. Crowley, chief of police of San
Francisco, Cal, appellant. VS.. Henry Chris
te1sen, reversed the order of the United
States circuit court for the Northern dis
trict of California, discharging Christensen
on a writ Of habeas corpus. This is liquor
license case and in its opinion the court
broadly lays down certain fundamental
principles affecting the relation in which
this business and the laws of the country
stand to each other. Christensen for sew
eral years conducted retail liquor store,
but in 1889 his application for renewal of
his license was refused by the
poce commissioners of San Fran
cisco in whom a municipal ordinance
vested discretion to grant or refuse license
for salooos, the refusal being based on the
ground of the bad repute in which the place
Stood. Thereupon Christensen did bust
ness without a license and was arrested.
He sued out writ of hebeas corpus, and the
United States circuit court ordered his dis
charge from custody on the ground that the
ordinance made Christensen's business de-
penu upon the arbitrary will of others. and
In that respect denied to him equal protec-
tion of the laws.
RIGHTS OF CITIZENS.
In its opinion by Justice Field the court
saws it is undoubtedly true that it is the
1f off 70 laxu uf,,I
business, subject only to such restrictions 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 subject to such restrictions as
may be deemed by the governing authority
of the country essential to the safety, health,
peace and good order and morals of
the community. Even liberty itself is not
unres ,ricted license to act according to ones
own will 1t is only freedom from restraint
under conditions essential to equal enjoy
ment of the same right by others. 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 are designed TO lessen noise,
others to protect health, others to remove
odors etc.
ATTITUDE OF THE LIQUOR MEN.
Il would hardly be necessary to mention
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
restrictions when applied to the business of
selling by retail Intoxicating liquors. 1t is
and the injury following them, if taken in
excess, is voluntarily inflicted, and
is confined to the party offending,
then the sale should be without
restrictions, the contention being that what
man shall drink equally with what he
shall eat, is not properly matter for legis-
iation. There is in this position an assump-
ton OF fact which does not exist, that when
liquors are taken in excess the injuries are
conined to the party offending. The injury,
It'll true, first falls upon him in his health,
which the habit undermines; in his morals,
which it weakens; and in establishment,
which it creates.
OTHERS AFFECTED.
But, as it leads to neglect of business and
waste OF property, and general demoraliza-
ton, 1t affects those who are Immediately
connected with and dependent upon him.
by general concurrence of opinion of every
civilized and christian community, there
are lew sources of crime and misery 90
society equal to the dramshop, where intox-
lcating liquors in small quantities
10 be drunk at the time are
sold indiscriminatey to all parties
applying. The statistics of every state
snow greater amount of crime attributed
10 tnis than any other source The sale of
sucn liquors In this way has therefore been,
az an times, considered proper subject OF
legislative regulation. For that matter,
tneir sale by the glass may be absolutely
Ploniolted. 1t is question of public ex-
pediency and public morality, and not of
federal law.
NOT AN INHERENT RIGHT.
4nere is no inherent right of the citizen
70 sell Intoxicating liquors by retail. 1t is
not tne privilege of citizen of a state. or
a citizen OF the United States. In prohibit
tlon or regulation of the traffic, discretion
may De vested in officers to decide to whom
~, ~ grant and to whom TO refuse a liquor
ncehSe. The officers may not always ex-
eroiSe the power conferred upon them with
Iisu0m or justice to the parties affected,
.s eut mat is matter which does not affect
.ne authority of the state, or one
mnicn can be brought under the
JTQsnlzance of the courts of the
9nIted States. The court saws that it
Us not perceive that the ordinance under
III "ncn tne prisoner was arrested violates
nly provision of the federal constitution or
owe, and that as to the state constitution
s.n1 anu laws 1t Is found by the decision of the
ot a'e supreme court that the ordinance does
' ov Nloiate them. The order discharging the
~ rSoner from custody is therefore reversed
taT .nu 'he case remanded with directions to
tba bAo otner proceedings in conformity with
fhH