Blue-grass blade., 1892-01-09

rists" in the annexed district to the
aty Of Chicago. whose status the Blade
discussed some weeks age. the Illinois
tate supreme court has Just handed
lown . decision which IL of the great
ut interest in connection with this mat
IN The saloon interests Of Chicago. In
bsiR desperate efRorts to overcome the
Obstacles which these prohibited dis
Rists placed in their way 70 the obtain
~ 4 ahsoluts control q the whsls
dty. carried the legal battle mp to AaS
The decision b . complete
for prohibition
The opinion of the couIt II unsnt
neuA II upholds completely the Va
idity Of the old prohibition ordinances
n KyAs Park and ether prohibited dis
ErictA the language Of the decision a
his point being - follows:
ny ysssing . gsAssal ordnance sn
~ subject the municipal authorities
nay determine when. 70 whom. anA
under what circumstances licenses
may b granted. and II susA ordinance
b NOE unreasonable the power Of Tie
sxssutivs officers Of tbs municipality -
Issue licenses will thereafter ~ con
krolled and measured BY it, terms II
no discretion IL reserved In relation -
The number or location Of the dram
shops 70 be licensed. then none can b
exercised. and the duty becomes nan
datory upon the executive odlesrs -
issue licenses to all applicsnts who ssn-
ply with the prescribed tsrma
III on the other hand, . discretion IN
reserved a. the number - location q
the dramshops 70 - licensed such dis
erection may be exercised BY the ofnssrs
charged with the duty Of Issuing the
license, and II the ordinance restricts
the location Of dramshops 70 certain
portions Of the municipal territory, said
oncsrs have no power - issue license
except In obedienee to said rsstric-
tionA"
II follows also from this that the
board Of aldermen Of Chicago II clothed
with fall power to establish prohibition
districts of varying areas within the
eitys territory; also has the power to
forbid the granting OF licenses to -
looms In the vicinity Of churches o.
schools; and it can limit the total num-
ber Of saloons to BE- licensed within the
city 70 5000. or ., 900, Or Loco or any
other number il may see proper. - II
now done under the Brooks law In
Psnnsylvsnia
furthermore. the state supreme
court holds that no psrson 10 deprived
II any right by such exercise of power
By the city board Of aldermen in limit
ine the number of saloonA The dssi.
sion says:
The refusal to license dramshops de-
prives NO man of any personal or prop
erty right but merely dsprives him Of
. privilege which Il u In the power o.
discretion Of the municipal suthoritiss
- grant or withhold"
This is merely . carrying eut OF ~
decision of the United States suprsDt
court in the celebrated California ease
which declared that no one possessed
N inherent right to sell rum. bssausl
q the unnecessary nature 81 the trsfas
and the Asbssing effects Of intsnpss
sAss lDon the people ~ large. TIA
tribunal held, il 10 to Be- remembered
that the state has the full power to r.
strict. tai. license or prohibit the trat
Ac-to deal with It. In fact - it ma
seem proper. As to the power thu
Chicago Tribune says:
''Ths power of the Chicago aldermen
over the saloon question il clearly Dc
fined IN this decision They are toll,
that II they wish 10 mako half dozel
or . dozen blocks anywhere in the city
. prohibition district they can Dc "a
and no man il injured BY being refuse,
. saloon license therein Why viii NO
The slAsrm 5, from wards whose psopl'
want dradd-Shops located among then
comply with the request Of aldsrmsl
from wards who do not want dramshop
for the tsblishment of sueh districts,
II they refuse to do il they initiate II
policy. Of the prohibitionists and den,
| homo rule
"TAs drys' e - . theory that
nsighborhood whose residents do no
want saloons has the right to Aspriv
smother nsighborhood Of them. thougl
al the residents have . consuming do
sire for them If the aldermen fror
the hsrd-drinking wards proceed 70 ~
on thst anti-homs rule principle. IN
force these whe do not want saloons :
have them. they viii AnA that the legia
lature viii intervene. md srdsr thsz
- mako prohibition districts whore
Usjority Of the people demand thsn
The viii Of the majority must ~ n
spsstsA
IF the saloon aldermen are wise the
VIII not wait for that to b done. but wi
permit the districts and sections of th
city which may 20 desire - rid then
solves Of dram-shops IN their midst
this policy il once entered On ii wi
not - long before several wards vi
b ffss from dramshoPs. except On psl
hsps the great thoroughfarsa In II
business districts the streets whic
have great public travel will probsbl
continue TO abound with drinkin
places, and they will also be found /
tie words settled By the smigrant
ffoD Europe whose customs tolsrat<
invite and require dram-shopa
But the total number Of saloons wi
- reduced considerably. especially
ne American residence nsighborhood,
and the city will be all the happier an
better fer N adjustment Of the loci
ton Of Aram-shops on the lines Of Loci
wisheA 4 vast number 4 men WI
have n objection to saloons in the bus
ness portion Of the city have . deep n
pugnance to the presence Of dram-shsJ
IN the vicinity of their homes sshoo
houses. and ehurchea
Every enemy Of the saloon will N
3eies - zee the gradual sxtricstion q
the liquor question from the meshes {
legal entsnglementa The suprem
seurt dseisions in the California easa
marked the end Of the era in which tn
pewsr Of the law could BE- invoked, i
most eases to protect the rum traf6,
That abolished forever the pleas ths
. saloon pursues legitimate and Ne,
ssssry business. and recognised full
it, debasing and demorslising effect
I upon the community. II declared tbs
the saloon sxists merely ~ suRsranes
not Of right; and that the people Of th
state may do whatever they will wit
II without any remedy or recourse o
the psrs of the persons engaged in i
This state Of things. then, rsdues
the liquor problem - . very sinDl
basia The one thing. the only thing
fer the friends of Temperance to de.
- educate the masses Of the people su
Of their present condition Of tolsranc
and Of support of the salsoni