St. Landry democrat. (Opelousas, La.) 1878-1894, 1891-01-24
The United States Supreme Court on
the Rights of LIQUOR Sellers.

The United States Supreme Court or
the Rights of Liquor Sellers.
One of the most important decisions ever
rendered by the Supreme Court of the
United States Is that rendered on the 10Th
| inst, when the case under consideration
was an appeal from the Chief Of Police of
| San Francisco VS.. one Henry Christense z,
LIQUOR seller, who had CHAINED q udg-
! meat in his favor in the lower courts.
Justice Field delivered the opinion of the
| Supreme Court, which now becomes the
| law of the whole country, and lays down
certain great principles which make the
! selling of intoxicating liquors peculiar.
| This decision will enter into the future
thinking of the American people, and will
! do more than any one thing in long time
to put the business where it belongs.
The court decided that the Board Of
Police Commissioners of San Franchises
had arbitrary power to grant or refuse
liquor licenses, and reversed the order OF
the Circuit Court for the Northern Dis
:rct of California diEcharging the prisoner
christensen, who was charged with sell
ing liquor without licenSas) and remandtd
the cause with directions TO take further
proceedings in conformity with the opinion.
Justice Field, in his opinion, discusses
a. length the relations between the liquor
business and the laws of the country. He
says: at is undoubtedly true that it is
the right Of every citizen to pursue any
lawful business, sub ject only 10 such re-
strictions as are imposed on all persons of
the same age, Sex or condition. But the
possession and enjoyment of this right,
and, indeed, of ali rights, are subject to
such restrictions as may b3 deemed Dy the
governing authority of the country essen
tial to the safety, health, peace, good
order and morals Of the community. EVeu
liberty itself is not unrestricted license 10
act according to ones own will II is only
freedom from restraint under CONDITIONS
essential to thu equal enj 1yment Of the
same right by Others. 1t is, then, liberty
regulated by law. The regulations gov
erning all the various pursuits of lie are
almost Infinite, varying with the nature OF
the business, some regulations being de-
signed to lessen noise, others to protect
health others TO remove doors, and so on.
1t would hardly be necessary to mention
this, were it not for the position often
taken and protested that there is some
thing wrong in principle and Objectionable
in similar restrictions when applied to the
business of selling by retail Intoxicating
liquors. Il is urged that as the liquors
are used as beverage, and the injury fol
lowing them, if taken in excess, is volun-
tarily inflicted and is confined to the party
offending, their sale should be without re-
strictioEs, the contention being that what
a man should drink, equally with what he
shall eat, is not properly matter for legls-
lation.'
Continuing, the opinion says: 'There
IS in this position an assumption or the
fact which does not exist, that when the
liquors are taken in excess the injuries are
confined to the party offending. The in
jury, 1t is true, first falls upon him in his
health, which the habit undeImines his
morals, which it weakeIs. ard in self
AMUSEMENT, which it creates. But it leads
to neglect of buAiaess and vase of prop
cry and general decentralization IL affects
those who are Immediately connected and
dependent upon him. BY the general con-
currence of opinion of every civilized and
Christian community, there are few sources
of crime and misery to society equal TO the
dram, shop where intoxicating liquors, in
small quantities to BIZ drank at the time,
are sold indiscriminately to all parties ap
plying.
The statutes of every State show
greater amount OF CflM6 ATTRIBUTABLE 10
this than to any other source. The sale OF
such liquors in this way has heretofore, al
all times, been considered the proper sub
ject of Legislative restriction. For that
matter, their sale by the glass may be alb
solutely prohibited. 1t IS a question Of
public expediency, and not OF federal law.
There is no inherent right of accession to
sell intoxicating liquors by retail it is not
a privilege of a State or CT a citizen of the
United States. The prohibition or regu-
lation of the traffic may be vested in off
GERS to decide to whom to grant and TO
whom to refuse liquor licenses. The off
GERS may not always exercise the power
conferred upon them with wisdom or
justice to the parties affected, but that is a
N after which does not affect the authority
of the State, or one which can be brought |
under to cognizance of the courts OF tue
United States.
1.-The court holds that the ordinance
under which the prisoner was arrested did !
not violate any provision of the federal |
or laws, and says that as to
the State constitution and laws, it is |
bound by the decision of the State Su-
preme Court that the ordinance does not
violate lem.'-IAs Journal and Mes
senger.