The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-11-20
SUPREME OPINION.
Local Orders Regulate Retail
Liquor Traffic.

The Supreme Court of the United States,
in an opinion rendered by Justice Field in
the case of p. Crowley, Chief OF Police of
this city, against Henry Christensen has re-
yersed the order Of the United States Cir
cult Court for the Northern District OF this
State, which discharged Christensen on
writ of habeas corpus.
Christensen for several years conducted a
retail liquor store in this city, but in 1889
mis- application for renewal of his license
was refused by the Police Commissioners of
San Francisco, in whom a municipal oId-
nance vested discretion 10 grant or refuse
licenses for saloons, the refusal being based
on the ground OF the bad repute in which
the place stood. He continued to do bust
ness without license, and was arrested
therefor by order of Chief Crowley. He
then sued out writ of habeas corpus, and
the United States Circuit Court ordered
his discharge from custody on the ground
that the ordinance made ChTistensen's bu,i-
ness depend upon the arbitrary will Of
others, and in that respect denied to him the
equal protection of the laws.
An appeal from the decision has resulted
in reversal, ana in the following opinion
The United States Supreme Court, through
Justice Field, broadly lays down certain
fundamental principles affecting the rela-
ton in which this business and the laws of
the county stand to each other:
III is undoubtedly true that IL Is 1Dc T1gUL OF
every citizen TO pursue any lawful business, sub
ject only 10 such restrictions as are imposed
upon ali persons OF The same age, sex or condl-
tion. But the possession and enjoyment OF this
right, and. indeed, OF all rights, are subject TO
such restrictions as may be deemed by the gov
etDng authority OF The country essential TO The
safety, health and peace, good order and morals
OF tile community. Even liberty itself Is not un-
restricted license 10 &C according 10 ones own
VIII. 1t is only freedom from restraint under
conditions essential TO the equal enjoyment of
the same right by others. II Is then literally
regulated by law.
The regulations governing all The various pur-
suits OF life almost Infinite, varying With lie
nature OF the business, some regulations being
designed 10 lessen noise others 10 protect health,
others to remove odors, and so on. IL would
hardly be necessary TO mention this were ii not
for the position often taken and vehemeDtly
pressed. that there is something wrong In prin-
eIple and objectionable In similar restrictions
when applied 10 the business OF selling by retail
intoxicating liquors. II is urged that as the
liquors are USED AS a beverage, and the Injury
following them, If taken in excess, is voluntarily
inflicted. and IS confined 10 the party offending,
tifeir sale should be without restriction, the con-
tentiOn being III t what mau shall drink,
equally with what lie shall eat, Is not properly
matter for legislation.
There is 10 this position an assumption OF
fact which does NOT exist, that when the liquors
are taken In excess The Injuries are confined to
the party offending The injury, 1t is true, frst
falls upon him in his health, which the habit un-
dermlnes; in his morals, which ii weakeBs, and
IN The SELF abasemeDt which 1t creates. But as
II leaos 10 neglect OF business aud waste OF prop
cry anu general GENERALIZATION, Ii dDecLS tuOS6
who are Immediately connected with and de-
pendent upon him.
By The general concurrence of opinion OF every
civilized and Christian community there are few
sources OF crime and misery 10 society equal TO
the dram shop, where intoxicating liquors In
small quantities TO be drunk at the time sold
Unfortunately to all parties applying. The
statistics OF every State show a greater amount
of crime attributable TO this than from any other
source.
Tie sale OF such liquors 10 this way has, there.
FORE been at all times considered the proper snb-
Iect OF legislative regulation. For that matter
their sale by the glass may be absolutely probib-
tied. IL Is que stion OF public expediency and
public morality aud not of Federal law. There
Is no inherent right OF citizen 10 sci! intoxlcat-
Ing liquors by retail; IL Is not a privilege OF a
ciiizen OF the STATE or OF citizen OF the United
States.
In the prohibition or regulation OF the traffic
discretion may lie vested in officers TO decide TO
whom 10 grant ana TO whom 10 refuse liquor IL
censes. The officers may not always exercise
the power conferred upon them with wisdom or
justice to the parties Affected bnt that Is mat
ter Which does not affect the authority of the
State, or one which can be brought under the
cogDizance OF the courts Of the United States.
The court says that it does not perceive
that the ordinance under which the prisoner
was arrested violates any provision Of the
Federal Constitution or laws, and that as to
the State Constitution and laws, it is bound
by the decision Of the State Supreme Court
that the 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