The Somerset herald. [volume] (Somerset, Pa.) 1870-1936, 1890-04-16
The Commercial Hotel Granted a
L lg,.snsa

I IN by reSloenle OF coluelSet, luuecu W -
idenss Of all the different preeincts Of the
county, as TO what action the Court would
take on regard 20 the application of Mrs.
Jane Winters of the Commercial Hotel.
Somerset, for retail liquor dealers license,
held over from February term. Many prom
| inent citizens were present when the appii-
cation was taken up By the Court Wednes-
day morning and bis Honor, Judge Baer,
was followed with the closest attention du-
ring the reading Of his opinion, which was
assenied TO by Associate Judge Pile and dis
sented to by Associate-Judge Shaver
As this is the first license granted in SOM
erset boroagh under the (Brook's) high IL
cense bill and the Court has taken adyant'
age Of that fact to render carefully-cossid-
cred and full opinion we publish il for the
benefit Of our readers.
Ia Re: Sur Application of Jane Winters
For hotel license in Somerset borough.
Tie applicants petition, signed by 90 re-
spectacle voters. asking that license be gran
ted. a remonstrance signed by l4i reputable
male voters, and remonstrance signed by
800 women were presented, read, and argu-
rnent of counsel for and against heard at the
regular time fixed by rules of Court for hear
ing. Final consideration Of the question IN
yolved was postponed until to-day
The fitness OF the applicant and her place,
and the necessity for license was alleged IN
the petition, and the sole ground alleged in
the remonstrance was .that there IS no ne
cessity for license of the house for which IL
cense is asked I" the fitness of the applicant
and her place was not denied. At the same
time, but on other ground, the only other
applicant was refused, and there IS not now
a licensed house in the town, nor has there
been under the Brooks law. Though The
rernonstransss were filed separately 10 each
application. ct they are in substance and
SIGNATURES precisely identical, and are in fact
no more than a general remons1rance against
granting license in the town, i.isniiestly
based on All opinion that license 5 naneces-
sary anywhere We would probably have
been warranted in not considering them.
We preferred however that the question OF
necessity should be fully and fairly tested,
without resort To technicalities and hence
over ruled objections that had been hled- to
the consideration of remonstrances, and Or
dered that testimony be taken with opportu-
nitv TO cross examine witnesses, so that the
Court could, in addition to the petition for
the remonstrance against, and its own
I knowledge, have the benefit Of evidence 10
/ fnlly inform It's conscience and so that rul-
ing could be made which could not De said
to rest on mere arbitrary discretion; but
would rest on the law--the petition for, the
remonsirance against, the evidence heard,
and such matters Of public nOtorie,y as the
/ Court would take noticeoi, and would besuch
1 deliverance of opinion on the question as
might be reviewed by the Supreme Court.
! In our opinion the law is, that, the peti-
ton for. aud the remonstrance against, are
not coaeiseire evidence, but only persuasive
evidence on the question of necessity, and
/ that the Court is not bound To determine the
question on mere opinion, evidence ofper-
sons in favor of prohibition and opposed to
license angciere on general principle on the
one hand, and the like opinion evidence OF
such as favor license any where and to any
extent, on the other hand.
To determine the question on mere count
of names for and against, in a case 'rsere no
other qroua3 Is raised, wonld be giving the
statute the force and effect of a local option
statute, uhic Il i not and iel iioi intended q
be; and would also be giving it such an in
depreciation as would recognize theexistenc'
of wonlans sulEIase on THIS question
If The ststute meant fliN the question
should be determined o.. a mere count o
names for and against. in q case +ispel'den
on the question Of necessity and where evi
dence has been heard. then the clerk Of th'
Court might as well do the counting as th'
Court.
That woman should be heard on the sub
iect of granting license is but reasonable
and just she should be, and is, as potent a
man to protest against wrong, and TO invoke
the law in favor Of suppressing vice, crime
and immortality, and in this court she ha
been heard with tina utmost consideration
But none OF the great body oftrue Christian
women who signed the remonstrance
twhatever designing man might do woui'
expect the Court to forswear its conscienc
and turn the question upon mere count L
decide in favor of those who are opposed t.
all license anywhere on general principles Q
temperance, when the law requires tn
Judges who act under most solemn oatl
to decide the question, not by a mere count
that school boy might make, but in Il,
exercise of a sound judicial discretion afie
hearing the petitions and remonstrances 70
and against, and the evidence.
The statute which governs us reads (Se'
3. Act May 10, 1887 that all persons al
plying or making objections to application
for license may be heard by evidence, p'
'tiiioii, remonstranoe or counsel.
The statutes in force have been judicial
constructed as meaning that license is COZ
teInplated to be granted where a necessity
shown to exist, and the court is Judicial
convinced Of the necessity.
II is in no sense prohibitory statute bl
only restraining one.
In the absence of evidence, and in the al
sence of personal knowledge by the cour
! license may granted or refused on conside
T alton of the remonstrance alone, as b.
frequently been done in this court, and Gnl
laws change is likely to be done again f
these, standing as persuasive evidence, af
nothing else appearing, the court having
D knowledge that the remonstrance is base
on a mere opposition to ali license, wou
3 necessar ly deem il sufficient.
The over jealous prohibitionist will,
E have no doubt, say. why didn't the Cou
E determine the present case on the me
!, reading fthe petition and remonstrance, an
: why of its own accord ordered testimony
be taken Our answer in advance IS tn
o the Judges living in the same town. and n
e deaf or blind to such matters Of public not
rieiy as necessarily confront them and el
Ter into an honest and faithful determinatiC
of the question, and not ignorant of Il
noble band of Clergy here and the opinion
Of prominent prohibitionisis on the questi'
of necessity, (which, in our opinion, are
e fat contravention of the true spirit al
meaning of the law could not with what
I. nanifestly appeared 10 us to be ditierei
! meaning ofthe term necessity as used
!. the remonstrance from that in the law, Gle
!. our consciences in determining the qgestio
without evidence.
r The wisdom and justice Of our course h
: been made abundantly clear and plain
i. our minds in the evidence submitted &
+ ALI the good people, lawyers and clergy i