The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1890-11-22
THE RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR
It is Not Inherent in tne Citizen, SAYS
tho Supreme Court.

tho supreme Court.
WASHINGTON, Nov 9.-The Supreme
Court of the United States, in an opin-
ion rendered by Justice Field last week III
the case of p. Crowley, chief Of police OF
San Francisco, Cal, appellant, VS.. Henry
Christensen, reversed the Srder OF the
United States Circuit Court tor the
northern district of California discharg-
ing Mr.. Christensen on writ of habeas
corpus. This is q liquor license case, ami
in its opinion the court broadly lays down
certain fundamental principles affecting
the relation in which this business aud
the laws of the country stand to each
other. Mr., Christensen for several years
conducted q retail liquor store, but in
1889 his application for renewal Of his
license was refused by the police conf
| missjonors Of San Francisco, in whom a
municipal ordinance vested discretion to
| grant or refuse licenses for saloous, the
refusal being based on the ground OF the
bad repute in which the place stood.
There-upon Mr.. Christensen did business
without a license and was arrested. lie
sued out a writ of habeas corpus and the
United States Circuit Court ordered his
discharge from custody on The ground
that the ordinance made Nj. Christen
sens business depend upon the arbltr-
arg will of others and in that respect
denied TO him the equal protection OF the
laws.
In it's opinion by Justice Field the
court says: 1T is undoubtedly true that
it is the right of every citizen 10 pursue
any lawful business. subject oaly to such
restrictions as are imposed upon all per
sons OF th1samo age, sex or condition.
But the possession aud enjoyment Of this
right, aud indeed OF all rights, are sub
iect 10 such restrictions as may be
deemed by the governing authority of the
country essential to the safety, health,
peace, good order and morals Of the COM
munity. Even liberty itself is not I'M
restricted license to act according 10 one 5
owu will. Il is only freedom from re-
ssraint uuler conditions essential ID the
equal enjoyment OF the same right BY
others. II is then liberty regulated by
law"
The court says the regulations govern
ing all the various pursuits OF life are al
most Infinite, varying with the nature OF
the business, some regulations beilg
designed TO lessen noise, others protect
healln others to remove odors, anu SO
on. Is would hardly be nee ssary to
mention this" tho court continues,
"wsre it not for the position often taken
and vehencntly pressed, that there is
something wrong in principle and Office
tionable in similar restrictions when APP
Piled TO the business OF selling by retail
intoxicating liquors. l. is urged that. as
the liquors ara used IS a beverage, and
the injury following them if taken in
excess is voluntarily inflicted and is con-
f1ad 70 the party offending, their sale
should be without restrictions, the con
tention being that what a mau shall
drink, equally with what he shall eat, is
not properly matter for legislation.
"ThorHis in this position al assump-
ton OF 2 fact which does not exist, that
when the liquors ara taken in excess the
injuries are confined to The party Offend
ing. The injury, it is true, first falls
upon him in his health, which the habit
undermines; in his morals, which it weak,
ems, and IL the self. abasements which it
creates. But, as it leads 10 neglect OF
business aud waste Of property and gen.
eral Decentralization, it affects those who
are Immediately connected with and de-
pendent upon him. By the general con-
curreuee of opinion OF every civilized and
Christian community there are few sour
ces of crime and misery to society equal
to the dram-shop, where Intoxicating
liquors i'll small quantities, to be drunk
at the time, are sold indiscriminately to
all parties applying. The statistics Of
GScIJ SItttU INV x dtllDujb VI
crime attributable to this than from any
other sources, The sale OF such liquors
in this way has, therefore, been, at all
times, considered the proper subject of
legislative regulation For that matter,
their sale by the glass may be absolutely
prohibited. Il is a question Of public
nj ~, tIi1 n, 1,.a
of federal law There is 10 Inherent
right of citizan to sell intoxicating
liquors by retail; it Is not privilege OF a
citizen OF che STATE or of the United Sta ties
In the prohibition or regulation of the
traffic discretion may De vested in officers
to decide to whom to grant and to whom
to refuse liqlrr licenses. Taa officers
may not always exercise the power con-
ferrei upon them with wisdom or justice
to the parties affected. But that is a
matter whloh does not affect the author
itty OF tue State. u one which 60 he
brought under the cognizance of the
courts of the United Safes"
The court says that it does not perceive
that the ordinance under which the pris.
oner was arrested violates any provision
of the federal constitution or laws, aud
that as to the State constitution and laws
it Is bound by the decision of the State
Supreme Court that tho ordinance does
NOS violate them. The order discharging
the prisoner from custody is therefore
reversed aud the case remanded, with
direction to take further proceedings
in conformity with the opinion of the
court.