The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1895-01-19

piles, and by the Constitution of the
United States, against subsequent
legislation; nor are they property IN
any legal or constitutional sense"
The New York casa referred to
above came up to the Court Of APP
pesls of New York, upon record
III which the validity Of an act OF
the Legislature repeating former
act regulating the sale of intoxicat
ing liquors was attacked. And the
court in passing on the question
used the following:
VIGOROUS LANGUAGE.
"If (the repeating actl in term 3,
it 10 true, revokes licunses granted
under the act of 1857, but that is no
encroachment upon any right Sc
cared to the citizen nor iDviolable
by the fundamental law. Those IL
oenses have neither the qualities OF
contract or OF property, but are
merely temporary permits to do
what otherwise would be an ofIense
against general law. They form q
portion of tho internal police sys
tenn OF the State; are issued in the
exercise OF its police powers, aud arc
subject to the direction OF the State
Government. which may modify,
revoke or continue them, as it may
deem tit"
Without going further into the
question, the Court has no doubt
that, as general proposition, tbers
Ii no contract OF property right in
herring III this license to sell lntoxi-
eating liquors.
But counsel for the petitioner
earnestly contends, with ingenuity
and ability. that the Legislature of
Virginia, by comforting on the
hoensee the power to assign his
license, recognized in, or conferred
upon, tho license tho quality of O
property right.
THE FALLACY OF THIS ARGUMENT
is apparent from comparison OF
tho sections OF the code Immediately
preceding and following the proyis-
lou III question. Section 55S pro
vldes TINT a license shall be held to
confer personal privilege to
transact tho business, which is tue
subject of tho license. Section $50
provides that, on motion of the At
torney for the Commonwealth, &c.
after ten days notice to any person
licensed to sell liquors, the granting
OF which license WAS bad on oerti
hcate OF n court, the court which
granted the certificate may revoke
the said ,lioonse. And section 5J9
itself. tho very section cited to sus.
tam the claim of a property right
III the license, expressly negatives
that idea, by providing that, while
the license may be assigned with
the consent OF the Court, when as.
signed it shall he personal priv
lege to The assignee, not to he exor.
clscd by another.
1t seem clear, then, that the only
eject that this section can have is to
operate as an enlargement of
THE PERSONAL pniv1bEaR
conferred by the State on the
license.
In conclusion, ii seoms clear TINT
the Legislature has full power in
the exercise Of its general police
powers to revoke these licenses. and
80 "S'Sesn'ou ZIG ulfeUC eXer-
olse OF tins power to revoke said
licenses to the several County and
corporation Courts throughout the
Commonwealth. The Court, then.
Is vested with full power to .,ro
woke tho said licenses, aud it is
equally cicar that no contract or
property right remains to be as
slgned. And to talk of distinction
between the personal privilege and
the documentary evidence of this
privilege, embodied in the written
instrument Issued by the State to
the license, is too subtle anu impal
paDle to receive serious considera.
ton.
The motion 10 transfer is denied.
he News From Oregon,