Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1890-12-31
LIQUOR MEN DIVIDED
On the Question of Change in the
Manner of Granting Licenses.
SOME WISH THE JUDGES TO REMAIN
In Charge, While others Think Better Men
Could be Elected.
A DECISION THAT AFFECTS BOTTLERs

The special telegram in yesterdays
DISPATCH regarding John H. Fow's pro-
posed bill for change IN the license laws
caused considerable comment among the
liquor dealers of the city.
There was also another theme for dis
cussion among the same men, the decision
of the judge in the Philadelphia courts,
that bottler's license does not grant him
the privilege OF Selling beer by the quart
and then allowing it to be drunk on his
premises.
In this case James Howard was con-
victed of retailing on a wholesalers license.
The testimony showed that he had 90 quart
mugs which he would fill for his customers,
and he would then furnish them glasses.
The decision WAS that while Howard could
sell quart 1t must be carried from his
premises in that quantity. The Supreme
Court will probably be asked to rule in the
case.
OF course, what affects Philadelphia
affects Pittsburg, and for that reason the
ruling caused a great deal of talk. There
are now cases somewhat similar pending In
the courts OF this county, and the above de-
cision will doubtless be considered prece-
dent, unless it is overruled by the higher
courts.
A QUESTION OF RESPONSIBILITY.
Another question has been raised, and
that is, is 4 man responsible for the TACT that
the liquor is consumed on his premises,
after he sells it in bottle, provided it is
not drunk in his office. case of a bother is
mentioned who has an empty shed close by,
and great many of his customers buy their
beer and go to the shed and drink it, and then
return the bottles. The dealers seem to thlnk
he is not responsible, as the beer is not used in
the room in which he holds license.
There is division of opinion as to whether
change in the license law would help the DuSl,
ness. Some seem to think the change would
be hest. while others believe that under the
present system the best work can be done. both
for the people and the dealers. j. j. Finch
SAID:
II read the outline of the proposed bill, part
of which would be very good changes, should
they be made. l believe that in Allegheny
county and Philadelphia the courts have
enough to do without hearing all the appll-
cations for liquor licenses In this county there
were over 1000 applicants to be heard. and that
takes lots of valuable time. In these two coun-
ties commission could do the work as well.
DIDN'T MAKE A PRECEDENT.
Because two commissioners were dishonest
and punished for it, it does not follow that they
all will be. However, believe in allowing the
people themselves to settle this matter, just as
they choose. and 1 will be willing to abide by
the result which ever way it goes"
Z. E. Lippencott takes an opposite view OF
the case, and in support of his ideas said: Il
don't want to see change. because the judges
have done fair and honorable work, and there
is 10 call for any change being made. BY put
ting it in the hands of commission ring
might get control, and that would settle it with
a good many people. Those who stood in with
such ring would be favored in the granting of
licenses. no matter us to the fitness of other
applicants. For my part am perfectly salts
fled with the work of the judges, and Eope TO
see the matter remain as it iS.'
Yesterday was a busy day with all the liquor
men, and it was very dificuI to get them to
talk However, they were about evenly divided
on the question. though the majority seem H.
clined to let it alone and allow the Legislature
to do as it thinks best without any protest, one
way or the other. There has been no meeting
of the liquor men called, nor is there likely to
be one held unless some more radical changes
than those now proposed are advocated.