St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-02
THE GRAND JURY.

The GRAND JURY.
The report of the grand jury on the
license question, which was published
i'll yesterdays GLOBE, attracted general
attention during the day. and was the
subject of some interesting comment
1t shows three things to the court which
the jury counts of considerable impOr-
lance. The first is that the city's license
fees are not all promptly collected at
the beginning of the year, but that &C
commodation is extended to saloonkeep-
ers for length of time which, on the
average, amounts to twenty-Seven days.
The jury complains that this is viola
ton of the law, which requires spot
cash, and that it results in an annual
loss of $500 interest to the city. There
is no allegation made of any favoritism
in this matter, or that in any case the
license fee is not sooner or later secured
in full. In view of this, if the question
of revenue is to be considered at all, the
city probably makes more by this short
delay, In the number of licenses ulti-
mately issued, than it loses on account
of interest. But, if it is the authorities
duty to strictly enforce the letter of the
statute without regard to its pecuniary
effect, either on the city'S treasury or
the capital invested under the permits
sion of law in this sort of traffic, the
jury is right in its position that this
twenty-seven days leeway should not
be allowed.
The second ground of complaint which
is expressed on this subject is that the
transfer of licenses from one person to
another or from one locality to another
is tolerated. This has been the uni
form construction of the law IN this city
since it first was enacted; and, if there
is any reason why it is not a correct
one, it would be well to have it made
known. 1t would seem a serious hard
ship to people engaged in the liqnOr
business should their license be treated
as personal grant, which they forfeit,
in spite Of the fact that they had paid for
it in advance, if they move their estab.
lishments or dispose of their property
to some one else. Unless the law ad-
mts of no other construction, or unless
it is the theory of the courts that the
unfairest treatment is the just due of
not readily commend itself to the aver
age man. The city is entitled to receive
$1,000 year for each saloon maintained
within its limits. Provided the saloons
are kept in the permitted districts by
parties who will run orderly places, it
cannot in general make any difference
to any one whether they are located in
this store or that, or what their proprie-
tors names may be.
The third point which the jury raises,
however, is the most curious in itself,
and the most radical III its suggestions.
The United States government eXacts a
tax of S25 year from every person sell
ing liquor at retail IN the country, and
500 from every person selling it at
wholesale. This is entirely without re-
gard to the provisions of state laws or
local regulations. There is some diff
ference of opinion as to whether clubs
are subject to this tax or not; but they
pay it because it is small, and because
perhaps, should they resist, they might be
compelled to. 1t is not license. like the
permission issued under our state law,
but tax, from which exemption could
not easily be secured. But the law is
quite clear that legitimate club is not
liable to the payment of local license
fee like that exacted OF a salOonkeeper.
1t has no more to pay this than it has to
pay hotel tax because it has rooms to
rent. The reason, too, is very obvious
clubs do not sell LIQUOR or rent rooms to
the public. They sell liquor and rent
rooms to their own members, who pay
for what they get, as the members of
family might divide the expenses of
their house hire and food among them
selves. The grand jury thinks that the
city is being robbed because they are
not required to take out licenses; but
this is based on an erroneous conception
of the law. Perhaps the law ought to
be different, but unfortunately the leg
iSlatures and the courts have exclusive
Jurisdiction in this branch of our civil
pOlity.
The same reasoning applies to the
houses of ill-repute, of which the jury
gives complete and probably accurate
list They sell liquor, and do it without
license. Perhaps 1t would be better
to license them like ordinary saloons.
This was favorite idea with DR.. ANIES
when he was mayor of Minneapolis.
But popular sentiment in st. Paul is
not educated in this direction. The
feeling here is that it is unfortunate
that such places have to exist, ut,since
they do, their orderly character can De
secured by bringing them under police
supervision and filming them periodically
for theil violation of the law. If they
were to be licensed, it would be a rec
ognition of their legitimacy by the city
authorities, and formal permission
for them to operate under the sanction
of the government. This would be
very radical change from Our present
method, and a change which it hardly
comes within the province of grand
jury to recommend. If they have any
concern with the social evil, as the laws
now stand, it is to suppress it, not to
bring it under the city's protection.
There probably will not be very impor-
tant results from this interesting report
on the license question.
THE VICE PRESIDENCY.