The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1893-12-28
HoUsEHOLDERs AND SALOONS.

A curious decision has just been rem
dered by the Supreme Court OF Indiana.
retail liquor-dealer opened saloon In a
street in indianapolis, having obtained a
license issued in due form by the County
Commissioners. lady residing in the
street brought suit against him for dam
ages. which she alleged her property had
suffered through the establishment Of the
saloon. The saloon-keeper stood upon his
license. contending that be could not be
held responsible in damages for pursuing
business which the State authorities had
authorized and for the right to carry on
which he had paid money TO the State.
The court concurred in his contention and
nonsuited the plaintiff. On appeal TO the
Supreme Court the decision was confirmed.
But on rehearing. which was granted on
his application, the court of last resort
changed its view.
1t held that in licensing a saloon the
County Commissioners did lot confer upon
the owner of the license any right to in
jure property. The law cannot authorize
the maintenance of anything which is in-
furious to citizens property, unless it be
obviously for the general public good, and
it being proved in evidence that the estab-
lishment of the saloon had impaired the
market value of the lady's house, the court
decided that she was entitled to damages
and that the saloon might be abated as a
nuisance.
The decision. as it stands, will make a
precedent in Indiana, and will compel
owners OF saloons to remove to places
where there is no residence property TO be
injured. How far it will be regarded as a
guide for courts in other States, especially
10 places where an applicant for license
is required to obtain the endorsements of
CT tizens in his block to his application, re-
mains to be seen.
The broad principle of equity is clear
No man can establish in close proximity to
neigbbor a business which will impair
the value Of that neighbours house. Hence
a bOne-boiling establishment or other
establishments which are meEace to public
morals or public order can be abated as
nuisances. and their owners can be COM
PEELED to pay damages to those whose
property they have damaged a certain
class of saloons frequented by noisy and
disorderly characters belong to the same
category and are subject to the same dis
abilities. But 1t was not charged in the
Indianapolis case that the saloon attacked
was disreputable or disorderly; it was
condemned on the ground that a saloon,
per Sc, was an injury to neighborinR prop
erty.
The various schemes Of anti-liquor legis-
lation are having a pretty thorough trial
in States in the river valleys. The schemes
vary from the prohibition laws of Kansas
and Iowa to the high license system of
Illinois and Minnesota; each of them has
its defenders. 1t is said that the hign
license plan has been found effective in
preventing drunkenness in Minnesota,
while total prohibition in Kansas and
Iowa has not closed the saloons in Topeka
and Davenport. The law of Nebraska,
which requires liouor-dealer to support
all widows and orphans whose condition
may be traced to liquor sold by him, has
driven many saloons out of business.
There have been decisions under a similar
law in Illinois. but whisky was plentiful
during the recent Worlds Fair.