The record-union., 1898-03-27
A NOVEL QUESTION.

! Perhaps one of the most novel ques-
/ tons ever raised in an American court
/ is now under examination for presenta-
ton to a Pennsylvania tribunal. Ger
tainly, one affecting so Immediately the
social order as related to permissible
business has not been brought before
a court. In Philadelphia a high-license
law prevails. Under it licenses are is
sued or revoked for cause. Recently
/ an application for renewal of a license
was resisted on the ground that the
! license law is unconstitutional. This
to fight out to the bitter end and so
| the case is in preparation for the courts.
/ The contention is that the saloon for
which the license is asked is not an
/ inn, not place fitted for the accom-
mediation and entertainment of stran-
! gers and travellers, but is solely for
/ the retailing of liquors in small guam
titles. This business, it is held, is in
/ imical to the health, peace and we'll
being of society, and therefore is not
| of character that the State or the
municipality can license and legalize.
Reliance is placed upon three decisions
| of the Supreme Court of the United
States condemning in strongest terms
the business of retailing liquor. A
Fquotation from one of the precedents
reads:
BY the general concurrence of opin-
| ion of every civilized and Christian
community there are few sources of
crime and misery to society equal to
the ram-shop where intoxicating liq-
ors in small quantities, to be drunk at
the time, are sold indiscriminately to
| all parties applying. The statistics of
IeVery State show a greater amount of
crime and misery attributable to the
use OF ardent spirits obtained at these
retail saloons than to any other
! sources" In the same decision it is
stated that there is no inherent right
/ in citizen to thus sell Intoxicating
| liquors by retail; it is not a privilege
/ OF citizen of the State, or of a citizen
/ of the United States" Then, in another
decision the remonstrant finds this:
| No Legislature can bargain away the
public health or the public morals. The
people themselves cannot do it, much
less their servants. Govern
ment is organized with a view to their
preservation, and cannot divest itself
! of the power to provide for them
Our friends, the prohibitionists. will
| be very much in accord with the con-
/ tention of the remonstrant, but that
/ concurrence will be rather sentimental
than because of legal fortification. We
/ do not believe that the claim of the
party who proposes to carry this case
up will hold good. In representative
| form of government, where the citizen
| is sovereign, his legislation in regula-
! ton of calling that has had lease of
| life since time waste stretch the fact
| slightly-unless expressly restricted by
constitutional inhibition, will not be
declared incapable.
! In the decisions quoted it is prob
able that the expression was an aside,
and did not go to the heart of such an
| issue as is now to be joined More
over, it is not probable that the de-
cisions will be found to carry the court
to the extent Of declaring that prohibi-
ton Of business instead of restriction
and control must follow because it is
the source of much evil.