The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-12-08

ing You To- yvui uniform 't'"-i an, 80
FesI'c1IuAy. fAi-i.i .- hN N"f-0.
Cuy Counsrio. Spin,"".
I.5Iy i,onoraoIr fart. o.. .,s~,-. i'r,sl-ei--
Isoafd u I'nc- uai'.. '.-...- '.''I 81 L." =
the ioivr .n.,,..-. o.. apt - your en-
->u,,....,. Iy' statsi.- t"it ior
soine"is istI o,et S,"- "a as.'".e ii''r len tA,'
ins over the qI's'Iv.. 20 tn- ir-l-c'N- uLti,s '-
tne r..ese ','.ii...-e..- -nd tn'- rViico b"!'-f.
hent issaf'.'"s ,.e v'.S.hs 81 d1ei"pa..',,e "a a.
.'iHlse Sou .- ,oa. ..-'- l.l ,n" ife'n'>es-
1853, Ire 80. = -. IA ,4. I-Ac,se Com
iis.s4ioi-r .s'""s any Ileri.s' WAIST ,,e ma
',nUIn sue. ..cv;.s- been .=~u-u 'Ioia'e an
or Tue Fi'.-"un- u ttr ia"~ - t.'is STATE snh %
.J-'. I-qu.r. t.-t 'y.ry Ir4n-4lui'r,=ieT sn..ii
'e re'soI u .oed ni,iat ,-..''"e'e:,
- dIarn~iilp~ authorize. the county courts waU
D. -j., ,.r.af, A, enc. ,.l..,. ,t c.tI-s nasIu2
. popuiati.i. Il l..yr, " over un winch cities
tur r.Nclse commissioner I,-rIoIiLs ranc-
tipnsI to rt,uA= ali Lc.rSrs wuieh may nave
be"n lssuec d. u - Shown mat Inc drtu-iioi
APR .i't al All t'ri"- hrpJ an oia"ris
hcLs.. Ina snti SECTION fHftH.T provides ttat
from the G-t- II tn otrer - revocation tr-
diaiIisli... I'rI ~haL Lex i,-III.1 to nave no
4tth-r. a;id q" be Without aSii4-rtl - l." l
act - '.ranIsH"pk-vIer- fa- pain purpose
81 " s:c' i".''-,as y E\.is" ,nhi.hs-l'h,is IS
power i-iss's-ed in TN Sla,c 1T !l.Ee Nv the
the revo alton 0; draushop iiceas.-.
llc' foregoing are tA- OrIy statutory provisions
In two very recent decisions. On- ~ Tue Su-
preme court OF the state and one ry tne -.
conlnnissi, tine extent of his .,utn.i5y
under tl.est prIvisiuns o ~. Jaw IN r. .iatlon Il
dramshOIs hay- received interTretatlon
The case of Higgins ". Tally 1T al. decided
aIay s. lsco. in the supreme Court. Was pro-
Of the Judges of the Circuit Court Of this city.
and one Joseph Roselr. TO proheibit th- court.
the instance Of Roseln. a drsmsho!keep-r.
from interfering with an iavestisatlon by the
Excise Commissioner. the object OF .'hich ,aNes-
iisntion was to determine whether M would
Yoke the license Heretofore granted by him 10 10
February. 1879 Rosell presented a petition. duly
ior dfallsap hcenS-. and everything Le.hs "a u,
proper form. the license was granted Larry N
April, l?-9 member Of the police, force u tle
City hei written com lalni WITH tly t;AtlSe
tornmissioner, charging that IL stih was kerp-
dcrly dramshop. and Violating the tranlsho.'
laws. wh-reuI,on the commissioner gave notice 70
Investigate the same On a DAY So ,ii.td in tn
notice Before that day Roselii applied for and
Court Honorable john A. Fatty. an order on
sh,i he ESse use iti , ~ mi si,s troi pr
co'dng with the contemplated iny.stieatiol, ard
upon the Excise Cominissioner applied to the s'r.-
rI'me Court Of Missouri for a vrt asAiIst ti-
Judge Of the court ard Rose!i. I, pr'hiht them
instituted in the Circuit Court against the com
The supreme Court. after consideration ot
ihe matter held that the .Ircuit C.nFt h:d ~, no
Jurisdiction to interfere with the investRi,I.h
which the Excise Commissioner had proposal -
}ulsnient In relation TO the rey"cation OK tn..
licerse. In coming to this CONCLUSION the court
'Ro-elu's iicense Is not a contract With the
State. nor property within IN" meaning of the
police powers " the state Government. by which
it is provided that such licenses may be revoked
by the Excise CurnmissiontT FOR violation of the
law. and this without waiting until Rosell has
tor viola tion of the law: ani in proceeding 10
40 40, SO he was not acting tqliciAiiy @ "a, en; under
respect to subject matter over which he has
The case in the Court 0: Appeals arose upon the
following facts: one Mara Gumperts on July l:
iS iSs, presented to the Excise caininissionsr of
shop license, and thereafter. on July 3. the II
at the place designated in his petitIon for a
period Of six months on January :. 1870 he
for renewal Uf his liceHs" Tor another six :
months period: otierirg The requi-ed bond fees
license. claiming. among other reasons f"r lis
good moral a' chaYact.T hY d s ia5b,in HI hn ,sen ~
and that after he procured tn. licenss which had
.hop. Thersupo, Gumperts brsusat a proceeiins:
to procure a writ Of nandamus against the TX I
else ComInissioner. and the Circuit Crrrt fe~ii.i
IN his favor and granted him y"remp,ory writ. !
From this iudsment the Excise conln.iss"i."r ap- ,
versed the Judgment or the lower caJirt AMI hsit .
the Excise conissiSnr 10 pass l rn s,1e ,h o,.
tion Of whether he would rerew the Iceas..: ais, ;
woke a llcerse already issued and not y,t ox- 4
pired If satisfied that the irt.rshop keeper Is ,
he had reason to beiiev. ctherwss when h.. Is
l i tfs csne ,6 ar 9a. E4sn he IS fa that
disorderly or disreputable h1use. IN the cotirs4
Suppose the Commissioner in good faith should
issue license to one whom Ee bel we'd To- he
acte9 ard before Iha .xpratidn Of % pie first stat Il
oeusa he should discover that III Un.rtso. within
two vsars had t-en convicted % vocation If the
dramshop act in some other city or COUNTY IN
This stat or that he had set Up = musical il
strument in his place az husinss To be- performed
on therein. or had Kept eamt'lins devices in his
PA" ., OF business ana naa permitted games Il
on. or had kept disorlerly- house. ali Of uhi..a
are conclusive evidence that the dr,lBis,,,i'.
keeper is not law-ahi'iins citizen nor a man If
stutify himself / = issuing second license AMI
sSopkaeper? Is he csmp-ed TiaFc.Sr bs1is 'f t.
sued the first license. TO issue the second one
nd under the law To have i.c,nss - an an
though he knows that his dratlshay, has i,atn
tbs - what he must 90 il the grant az cI aW ybe e sI
ond license Is only a ministerial duty such =
that would compel IN" Commissioner in comply
ing with one REQUIREMENT OF the act 10 Violate
other fundamental proyisions Of tn" act.
and ITovisions. toe. which wer" incorporated in
dow from disor'ieTly conducted! dcIu,shgp
We hold that jurisdiction thu issuance Of
Iourts or the Excise omfnissioneE in e:t:es Z,
this discretion Is not the Subject OF control By
From these suthorities it would appear that
the Excise Conmissioner NAV refuse t. issue
believes 10 he Iacl kim; in good moral charact.r
nr having issued the license. he may revok. It
because he has discovered such fact or because
he dramshopkeeper main;aIrs a dis0rderly or dis |
= putabIe place Of business. which fact OF Itself.
Iidcr the opinion last cited. cOnclusively estab-
H. hes the want Of good moral character, and that
The acs thus taken by the Excise Commissioner
IS not subject 10 other control. Clearly the right
to close up a disorderly or disreIutIble dram
shop is vested IN the city Of -. Louis in the
!: :xcise Commissioner.
Al the same tine the police are required in
he discharge OF their duty, to prevent crime and
% arrest offenders against the laws and gem
rally TO see that the laws which are leveed
!! ali ST criminal offenses executed iSectiun 1
.212 r. 8. 1891 If the police discover that a |
i-amshop s being Conducted In such a manner