New-York tribune., 1894-04-06
A NEW POINT OF LAW.
INDIANA LIQUOR DEALERS DISTURBED
BY DECISION OF THE
SUPREME COURT.

BETTER THAN PROHIBITION.
indianapolis April (SpeciaD.-The Stehlin liquor
decision by the Supreme Court of the State has
struck the saloon and liquor interest the most de-
structve blow has received at least since the
passage OF the Baxter Liquor law which the court
declared invalid back in the early seventies. Yet
the only legal principle involved is that the de-
cison declares the saloonkeeper responsible for the
character Of his business and is liable for damages
II the presence of his saloon damages the salable
rental value of adjoining property. In residence
neighborhoods and in many business localities this
has generally been the result of the contiguous
LOOM but hitherto the dramseller has always been
shielded from liability by his license. The courts
have always held that. having secured license,
dealer IN liquors has the rights any other
dealer in supplies The injured property owner has
been compelled to submit so long that the injustice
has been endured and nearly universally en-
braced that even the sincerest friends of temper
greatly surprised when the Supreme
Court-a Democratic Supreme Court at that-upset
the theory which the liquor interest had supposed
settled 1t is needless to that the liquor men
surprised painfully surprised to be thus treated
by a Supreme Court with four of the members OF
their political faith. But they overlook the fact
that with two of the Democratic Judges in favor OF
the new principle and two clingng to the old, the
party theory the result of the litigation was really
cfter ALL determined by the Republican member
Judge Coffey. The opinion written by Judge
McCabe, and was concurred In by Judge Daley
The dissenting judges Howard and Hackney
Judges Corey and Daley are standing for nomlna-
ton for reelection before the conventions OF their
respective parties and the Indiana Liquor League
is organizing It is said to defeat them II not for
nomination. then at the polls. and for this purpose
Is raising $4,000. The liquor interest knows when II
Is hit
The Republican leaders OF the State welcome
the decision for several reasons Chief among
Itcs ~ from tha
of that element which conceves the temper
ance issue always first in importance. To hold
these voters in line the party platform-makers,
after the defeat the Baxter law. up 10 1892 had
always pledged the party to a local option law An
adverse majority in the Legislature was, however.
the regular rule The omission OF any reference to
the temperance issue in 1892 lost the party some
votes. but gained more from the German Ameri-
can population than were lost 10 the Prohibition
party. But the loyal temperance agitators have
renewed the pressure this year. and have arranged
20 hold daily prayer meetings In Tomlinson Han
for a week next month, preceding the Repub!i-
can State Convention in the same hall. The pur-
pose IS to force the recognition Of the Temperance
Issue OF local option in the party platform. But
now local option IS rendered impracticable Ii has
been sde-tracked for something more effective.
something which has safely passed the judgment
OF the Supreme Court before which tribunal a
local option law might be subjected with some
danger. The court has found short cut to a
better goal than the friends OF temperance agita-
ton expected hoped for. This forestalls the
need Of any declaration In the party platform on
the subject and the only utterance will be one In
favor of the enforcement Of law Chairman Cow
dy has given the subject consideration. and agrees
with the party advisers this point.
Another feature OF temperance agitation has been
side-tracked. Opposition to saloons need no longer
lead to a resort dynamite for success. The
practice is peculiar to Indiana, but there have
been frequent instances In this State where
legal methods have failed dynamite has accom-
plshed the purpose Quaker communities have
furnished many OF these instances OF fanatic zeal
and other religious neighborhoods always found a
way to rid themselves OF saloons when the law
failed. There is no longer any excuse In Indiana
for zeal so dangerous in character. and when the
courts of other States seize upon the precedent |
given them by the Indiana court the situation |
in them will be likewise improved
Thus II the decision holds good In future cases
and the liquor carry out the threats that they
are often heard to utter. the little corner saloon |
owned and operated by John H. Sehlin. at COL |
lege-ave AMI Seventh-st.. is likely TO become his
torlc The place was opened nearly four years ago |
on A lot belonging 70 a German named George |
Heidt The Second Ward the lines then ran, |
was a quarter OF homes Of the pure American type.
The residents largely owned their own homes. ana
were Of varying wealth, but OF uniformly high |
respectabnity The only buildings OF public charac-
ner stores It was matter OF pride that there were
no saloons in the ward. and when the announce
ment was made that StehlIn would ask for a IL
cense for n dramshop on Heldts property. the vir-
tuous fathers and mothers were horrihed. Lying
next to this property was the and lot of Mrs.
Mary r. Haggard who had been prominent figure
and speaker in the cause Of Prohibition The an
nouncel intrusion OF the saloon aroused the great
est Indignation. and meetings called TO protest ana
to take steps to demonstrate were largely attended
and earnest speeches made. \ remonstrance
was fled but without avail. Sehlln came up to the
requirements Of the County Board of Commission
ers as a OF morals and fitness of tompera-
nenr TO have a license. and one granted. Mrs
Haggard was helpless. being widow without even
the power of remonstrance. The saloon was opened
but It's presence was a continual irritation to the
residents of the locality The patrons of the place
and black. Then Mrs. Haggard retained captain
crty had deprecated 5000 in value. ana could not
be rented for much over half what 1t would have
Ste6iin. having compiled with the forms OF the
law, was upon the same footing as any other ousi-
T eTrt Hin ths lower ' court was affirmed Then re-
hearing was granted the court being convinced tnat
proper hearing had not before been given the case
Then followed more arguments and briefs and IN
interest Stehn's attorneys asked for a second re-
hearing and this has Just been denied Inc prn-
future court. which is unlikely; II saloon damages
adjoining property there Is justice IN giving the
captain Ritter attorney for the plaintiff. has
long acted with the Prohibition party. and has been
a persistent and consistent temperance worker lie
made some startling statements for the regulation
when asked by your correspondent,
What will be the effect OF the decision upon the
liquor busnessy .
at will drive saloons out of residence districts.
said ne. "and every other place whore they are not
acceptable II II be shown that they have caused
A depreciation In the value of the adjacent prop
srty Reputable communities need have no saloons.
The court has hedged about the saloon Keepers with
4 responsibility for their acts which they cannot
afford to bear The decision has knocked the bot
om out OF all local option laws because under It a
license Is no protection ward county might
vote to authorize a saloon to be opened within its
limits but the owner OF any property damaged by
he nearness OF the dramshop would have recourse
n law for damages and could abate the saloon as
! nuisance | would not ask for a prohibltory
,lause In the Constitution for this decision accom-
thnn cnIIll do IL