Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-05-06
THEIR REASONS WHY.
License Court Judges Tell Those
Who Failed to Pass Examination
WHY THEY WERE KNOCKED OUT.
The Court Doesn't Think Brewers Should
Have Several Licenses.
BOTTLERS AND WHOLESALERS LAID Low

lne recent Incense Court. Inc urtt was on
the granting of wholesale licenses to brew
ers who desired to establish agencies in
smslI1ocal towns and townships for the sale
their own products. This order reads as
follows:
The following brewers were applicants for
wholesale license:
Pier q Dannals, First ward, McKeesport:
Keystone Brewing Company, First WARD, NC
Bsuerlein Brewing Company, Fourth ward. Nc
D. A. LutL. Fourth ward, McKeesport.
Eberhart & Uber. First ward, Braddock:
The Straub Brewing Company, First ward'
Pier q Dannals. First ward. Braddock.
Iron City Brewing Company, Second ward,
keystone Brewing Company. Second ward.
keystone Brewing Company, CHARTERS b or
D.& A. Lutz. CHARTERS borough.
Pier & Dannals, CHARTERS borough.
William Tam Brewing Company CHARTERS
wainwright & Co, First ward, Homestead.
Bauerlein Brewing Company, Second ward,
d. A. Lutz. Second ward, Homestead.
Iron City Brewing Company, Second ward,
Keystone Brewing Company, Second ward.
Bauerlein Brewing Company, Harrison town
Michael Enz Harrison township.
ID. & A. Lutz, Harrison township.
Wainwright Co., Harrison township.
William Tam Brewing Company, Harrison
township.
Judge White on Brewers Licenses.
WHITE. j.
All the brewers above named were granted
brewers licenses in the districts where their
breweries are located, and most of them were
also granted bottlers' licenses, to bottle their
own products. These applications are for
wholesale licenses in other districts, and it was
stated by counsel that all are willing to have
the licenses limited to the products of their
own breweries
In 1883 and 1889 a few such applications were
before the court and all were refused. Last
year Is were granted. This year there are ~
applications. If these should all be granted
and all have an equal rlght-next year, no
doubt, there would be twice as many, and SO
increasing with every year.
/ do not think such licenses ould be
granted briefly for these reasons:
First-I do not think the law contemplates
that one person shall have several licenses in
different places. The fair construction of the
law is that the applicant shall personally super
intend and conduct the business. This is im-
possible in such cases as the above. Pier d
Dannals ask for five licenses distant from their
brewery, and distant from each other. The
keystone Brewing Company for 4, the Iron
City Brewing Company for 4, Lutz d Son for 4,
NE nn RtpE aS5 1O %an tine
wrightt& Company for 2 each, and each OF the
others for l.
Second-The personal qualifications Of the
applicant required by law is q guarantee that
the business shall be conducted properly, and
implies the personal supervision OF the business.
That is impossible in these cases. The business
must necessarily be entrusted to an agent or
servant, who may not possess these qualifica-
tious over whom the court has no control, who
may be removed at the will OF the employer,
and may be irresponsible for violations Of che
law, and by fleeing escape all punishment II
he be an agent Of the brewery, he should apply
in his own name, possess the necessary qualifoa-
tions and give the bond requested by law.
Guardian Against n Monopoly.
Third-If they have an undoubtcd right TO
the limited wholesale license, cannot see why
they arc not entitled 10 the general wholesale
license; and II brewers are entitled 10 q num-
bcr Of licenses, / cannot sec why the larger
wholesalers are not also entitled TO y number.
and thus have branches everywhere In tho
county In this way the business would be
monopolizod by few persons and be placed on
u very uncertain and unsafe basis.
The argument In favor OF granting these
licenses II that It enables the home brewers. to
compete with foreign brewers by having an ice
house AS storage" house, where they can keep
their beer and furnish IL TO their customers in
good condition. But there IL nothing In this
argument We do not grant licenses to foreign
brewers Some licensed Wholesaler may act AZ
their agent-so he may for q home brewery. l
can see no objection 60 q brewer having an ice-
house or storage room at some proper place
distant from the brewery, where his beer can
bs stored and kept until his customers need It.
OF course, II cannot be sold at such storage
room. All orders must be sent TO the brewery
and beer can only be delivered on such orders.
But most of the places in which these licenses
are asked for are within an hours railroad dis
tance from the brewery and shipments can DO
made several times daily.
And now, May 4, 1891, for the reasons above
stated license is refused to the several appli-
cants in the foregoing list.
Per our1am.
Why Wholesalers Were Refused.
The second order of the court referred to the
wholesale applicants and gave the reasons for
the refusal of the unsuccessful ones. The
order read as follows:
The following persons were applicants for
wholesale license who had license last year:
Oswald Hickman. First ward, PIttsburg; John
h1elhan, Second ward; George h. Nicely, Fourth
snd Fe"dntr alE TPomss Kearns Dayid onnenbeiRS,,
er, Jacob Samolsky, sixth ward: David osgood,
Fuchs, G. NJ. Hopf and Martin Holier, Eleventh
Patrick Mccormick, and John shea, Twelfth
ward: Charles Larkings Thirteenth ward
n. Dubold, Fourteenth ward; owen McCuske
Fifteenth ward; Morn Morris Ackerman, Henry Fuchs,
Sweeney and James Newell, JT., 'Eighteenth.ward:
fa1d kineteenth ward: Mic6sei and g. End h snd
Joseph Muller, Twenty-fourth ward; j ohm W weber,
Twenty fifth ward: John q. Schademan and
Bender, William iadden, and Fred W. Spreen,
Jr., Twenty-ninth ward; William Ward and
Thirty-fourth ward;l August Marshall, Fourth
ward, Alleghenyi Susan keileack, Sixth ward;
John Hack, Eighth ward; Cornelius Toomey
Sixth ward, Mckeesport: p. ]. Brennan, W. Ii.
Conlan and Patrick 3 McGowan, First ward,
BraddOck; Michael Mooney, Third ward; Julius
Gottfried, Henry HANNA and James b. Nelson,
CHARTERS borough: George CANISTER and John
kammerer, Etna borough; Lawrence Oefiner and
William Walton, First ward, Homestead; Louis
Amshell and Levi Myer, Second ward Anthony
SchneiderlOehner, First ward. Millvale: Leopod
sunstein, Second ward; Henry Hoehl Sr., Third
ward; Louis Loenz, sharpshHrg; Joseph Knuf,
9. G. Frouck. Conrad Hoth and Henry Stamn,
Clair township; Runk and Mechoir Wolf, Mifiin
township; John Leichsinger, North Versailles
township, and William Ettingham, Union town.
ship.
cantS az the March term for wholesale license,
after hearing in court and full consideration
are severally refused because they do not pos
sess the qualifications required b. law, and for
the further reason that during last year they
carried on considerable retail and bottlers'
business under a wholesale license.
Per curiam.
And now, May A. 1881, all other applicants at
this term of court for wholesale licenses who
were not granted or included in the foregoing
list, or whose applications were not withdrawn,
after hearing and full consideration are sever
ally refused because they do not possess the
qualifications required by law for a wholesale
license, and The Clerk of the Court is directed
TO make the entry Of refused in each of said
cases.
Per curiam.
Bottlers Told Why They Failed.
Applicants for bottlers' license were dealt
with in the next order, which was as follows:
Applicants fer bottlers' license-Joseph Loch-
ner, Ssl Webster avenue. Eleventh ward, Pitts
burg; j. b. Schmidt 81 Vine street. Eleventh
ward; Fred Gamble 2Il smallman street.
Twelfth ward; John Horau, a96 Tustn street:
e