Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-05-27
MUST GO UP HIGHER.
Judge White Directs Refused Whole.
sale License Applicants
TO THE COURT OF LAST RESORT,
His Reasons for Knocking Them Out at the
Recent Hearings.
YESTERDAY IN THE COUNTY COURTS

| Probably some of the 43 applicants for
wholesale liquor licenses who went out of
the presence of Judge White the other day,
convinced that their path to a license was a
fiowery one, are disillusioned by this time.
| The Judge yesterday refused to grant re-
hearings asked by these rejected applicants,
! and gave reasons for his refusal and
answered the exceptions taken specifically.
The appellants hope to get such declara-
tion from the Supreme Court this time as
| will settle the points raised in the Pollard
| case, so that hereafter they will know what
| they can depend upon.
Judge White says the Court did not rule
that it had absolute and arbitrary discretion
and did not exercise it; that it assumed no
| power except such as it considered in strict
| conformity with the law, and had no inten-
| tion to run counter to the decision in the
| Pollard case; that the Court did not rule
that it had power to judge of the necessity
for license, did not pass on that phase and
station the grounds of refusal in express
terms; that in the matter of the three quail
fications, citizenship, temperate habits and
good moral character, the burden of proof is
on the applicant, and he must satisfy the
Court that he is a fit person for the business.
An Applicants Appearance Against Him.:
The applicants appearance may be pre-
sumptive evidence for or against him in two
of the necessary qualifications, and in some
instances, the Judg states, parties appeared
before the Court, who were manifestly
under the influence of liquor; that although
the Court has no right to refuse a wholesale
license because it is considered unnecessary
in locality named, yet its opinion is that it
may properly imagine whether the appli-
cation is made in good faith or whether as a
mere cloak to do an illegal retail business;
if the latter it is trick on the court and
fraud on the law.
-ings and reconsiderations, Judge White
says: "After the decision of the Supreme
Court in the Pollard case in 1889, all those
who had been refused a wholesale license
last year obtained them under q misappre-
hension of that decision. The popular
opinion was that a a wholesale license was a
matter of right and the court had no discre-
wholesale applications last year. More
were granted than ever before existed
In this county at any time. or un-
were refused, and the reasons for refusal
given precisely the same as the reasons
given in these cases, namely, that the appi-
can't did not possess the qualifications re-
Quired by law. Some of them were taken up
to the Supreme Court and affirmed last fall.
Notwithstanding that decision all who had
license last year and many new ones applied
tions for bottlers' license, q granted, II with
drawn, and % refused There were 1888 ap-
plicants for wholesale license, 137 granted, 36
anu loO I0luSeO.
Great Sources of Intemperance.
"The experiences of 1889 and 1890 showed
that the small bottle and wholesale places
were the greatest sources of intemperance
and the evils of intemperanc, and far worse
than regular retail houses. They did not
conduct q legitimate wholesale business, but
sold by retail and carried on mainly bottle,
jug and small keg business in the neighbor-
hood, violating nearly every law on the sub
ject and influencing great evils upon the
community. The police authorities of the
cities and boroughs, and public sentiment
such houses. For that reason the Court this |
year was more strict in reference to whole |
sale licenses and more liberal as to- retail. |
Although the Court has no right to refuse a |
wholesale license because it may be of Opin- |
ion that wholesale house is unnecessary |
in the locality, yet I think the Court may |
very properly inquire whether the ap- |
plicant for a wholesale license is made |
in good faith to do a wholesale business, |
or as mere cover to do an Illegal business. |
The character and means of the applicant, |
tions, the locality, the size and fitness of the
house, and, if he has had q license, the ex- |
tent of his business and howit was con- |
Quoted, are all matters to be considered in |
this question. If the Court is satisfied from |
the evidence that the application is not made |
in good faith, but for fraudulent purpose, |
/ think the license should be refused. |
1t is proper to say, however, that the refusal 1
of licenses in these cases was not on that |
ground.
These applicants who have asked for re-
hearing are no more worthy than scores of |
others who have not as yet made such re-
quests. But if these are granted a rehearing |
no doubt many others will then come in, |
and we shall have weeks of work, with no /
assurance that, in the end, there will not be |
as much dissatisfaction as now. Ihave gone |
over my notes of testimony on all these |
cases, and have carefully considered all
the reasons urged in support of these /
motions. 1 am not convinced of any error
we committed as to the law, or of any mis-
take we made in the facts. Three of the ap-
plications are by Lutz & Son, brewers. who
ask for wholesale license in different places,
having already been granted a brewers |
license and also q bottler'S license. There
were q such applications by different brew
ers. The reasons for refusing them are
stated in the order in the case of Pier &
Dannals."