Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-11-11
LIQU0R-SELLING.
OPINION or THE FEDERAL SUPREME
COURT THEREON.
Decision I'm the California Liquor-Lieenso
Case-No Inherent Right TO Sell
Intoxicating Llc.ors.
IBy telegraph % mo Dlgpsich.l

w ARLINGTON, NOycmDCr -1nc Du-
preme Court OF the United States, ID an
an opinion rendered by Justice Field to-
day in the case of p. Crowley. chief Of
police OF San Francisco, Cal, appellant,
rs. Henry Christensen, reversed the Or
der Of the United States Circuit Cont
for the Northern District OF California,
discbarging Christensen on o writ OF
habeas corpus. This ia the liquor-li-
censo case, and in its opinion the Court
broadly lays down certain fundamental
principles affecting the relation in which
this business and tho laws Of the coun-
try stand TO each other.
THE CASE.
Christensen for several years con-
Quoted a retail liquor store but in 1889
bis application for renewal OF his license
was refused by the Police Commissioners
Of San Francisco. in whom o municipal
ordinance vested discretion TO grant or
refuse license for saloons, the refusal be-
ing based on the ground of bad repute
IN which the place stood. Thereup0n
[ Christensen did business without
license and was arrested. He sued out
o writ of hd5cas corpus and the United
States Circuit Court ordered his dis
charge from custody on the ground that
the ordinance made Christensen's bust
ness depend upon the arbitrary will OF
Others, and in that respect denied TO
HIM the equal protection of the laws,
THE COURTS OPINION.
In its opinion by Justice Field the
Court says ." II is undoubtedly true that
it is the right Of every citizen to pursue
any lawful business, subject only to such
restrictions as ore imposed upon all per-
sons Of the same age. sex, or condition.
But the posse ssion and enjoyment OF this
right, and, indeed of all rights, are sub
/ Jet 20 such restrictions az may be deem
| cd by the governing authority Of the
country essential 10 the safety, health.
peace and good order. and morals of tho
community. Even liberty itself is not
unrestricted by license to act according
TO ones own will. 1t is only freedom
from restraint under conditions essential
to the equal enjoyment of the same right
10y others. 1t is, then, liberty regulated
by law"
LEGISLATIVE REGULATIONS
Tho Court says the regulations govern
ing the various pursuits Of life are al
most infinite, varying with the nature
Of the business, some regulations being
designed TO lessen noise others to pro-
toct health, others TO remove odors, &c,
and it would hardly be necessary to
mention this, the Court continues, were
it not for the position often taken and
vehemently pressed that there is some
thing wrong in the principle and obiec-
tionablc in similar restrictions when ap-
| piled 90 tho business Of selling by retail
intoxicating liquors 1t Is urged that rs
| liquors are used as q beverage and the III
jury following them ii taken In excess
is voluntarily inflicted and is confined
90 the party offending, then the sale
should be without restrictions, tho con-
tontion being that what man shall
drink equally with what ne shall eat, Is
not properly q matter for legislation.
ASSUMPTION OF A Goy-EXIsTEST FACT.
There is in this position an assumption
Of fact which does not exist-that when
| liquors are taken in excess the injuries
arc confined to the party offending. The
injury, it is true. first falls upon him IN
his health, which that habit undermines;
| i'm his morals, which il weakens, and In
/ eslf-abascmont, which it creates But
as it leads to neglect Of business and
waste Of property and general democrat
ization il affects those who are
Immediately connected with and
dependent upon him. By general
concurrence Of the opinion OF every
civilized and Christian community
there are few sources Of crime and
society equal to the dram-shop, where
Intoxicating liquors in small quantities
TO be drunk at the time are sold indls-
criminately to all parties applying. The
statistics Of every State show a greater
amount Of crime attributable 70 tins
than TO any other source. The sale Of
! such liquors in this way has therefore
/ been at all times considered O proper
subject OF legislative regulation. For
that matter, their sale by the glass may
be absolutely prohibited. II Is qqes-
ton of public eXpedienoy and puplc
morality, and not Of Federal law.
no INHERENT RIGHT 10 SELL wmsKET.
There is no inherent right Of the citi-
zen to sell intoxicating liquors by rotail.
IT is not O privilege OF Q citizen Of the
State or of a citizen OF the United
States. In prohibition or regulation OF
the traffic discretion may DO vested IN
officers TO decide TO whom 10 grant and
to whom TO refuse liquors The officers
may not always exercise the power con-
ferred upon them with wisdom or justice
TO the parties affected This matter IS
not one that can be brought under the
cognizance of United States Courts.
The Court Gays that 1t does not per-
ceive that the ordinance under which the
prisoner was arrested violates any pro-
vision Of the Federal Constitution or
laws, and that "a to the state Constitu-
ton and laws it's bound by the decision
Of the States Supreme Court that tho
ordinance does not violate them. The
order discharging the prisoner from
custody is therefore reversed and the
case remanded with directions to take
further proceedings in conformity with
/ the opiniOn OF the Court.