The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-04-01
LETTER FROM
ROTHWELL
His Views on the
Dispensary
Bill.
ATTITUDE or
LIQUOR MEN
Their Indicated Line of Resistance
of the Measure Becomes

Editor Advertiser:-After much hest
tation, well realizing that any state
ment | may make on the subject VIII
be heavily discounted / have decided
to present a few facts and conclusions
with reference to the above proposed
measure; one that is calculated to Grip
pie and ruin an extensive business IN
terest in our community
In so doing I shall mainly quote emf
nent authorities and endeavor to point
out that insour present financial condi-
ton this measure is fraught with dan
gerous possibilities and serious menace
to the Territory.
No person familiar with our financial
history of the past two or three years
will deny that from Hawaii to Niihau,
individually and collectively, our in
yestments have been abnormally large
In proportion to the capital at COM
mand and that today our commercial
and Industrial interests overlap and are
interviewer to an extent unparalleled
in any other place. By this 1 mean
that, in view of present financial condt-
tions, II would be suicidal, by an act
of the Legislature, to paralyze any large
interests in the Islands with the effect
of rendering the same bankrupt, under
any pretence or apology that it is for
the public good.
= 1t is admitted that the liquor business
Is in the hands of a comparatively high
class of men in this community and II
is not claimed that any exceptionally
large degree of intemperance exists
here, taking into consideration that
ours is a seaport town and thus subject
to an abnormally large transient popu-
lation the majority of whom are be-
yond any consideration of local re
6traint.
There would therefore appear to be
no especial necessity now for raising
this question, which may develop into
a serious one, at this critical juncture
in our financial history.
The Dispensary bill provides for an
appropriation of 100000 to buy Gov
eminent stock of liquor; whether or no
the taxpayers money may legally be
thus appropriated is not now under
consideration, but 1 wish here to make
the assertion that twice or thrice this
amount will not suffice to pay the in
eyitable ultimate cost of forcing reput-
able and confessedly law-abiding citi-
zens out of a business hitherto lawful
administrative branches of the Gov
eminent.
The advocates of the Dispensary bill.
whatever their individual motives may
be, have not taken into consideration
the fact that whatever is taken for the
public good or benefit must be paid for,
and it is not to be supposed that any
legitimate interest can be legislated out
of existence without due compensation
to those thus injured whether for the
Supposed or real good of the rommun-
ity.
When the taxpayers have provided
the necessary means of indemnifying on
this principle equitably adjusted claims
of those who sustained losses in con-
sequence of the fire of January 20, 1900,
| feel assured that further consideration
would be extended prior to any ill-cun-
sidered legislation on the liquor ques-
ton.
On the subject of compensation Cor
losses by reason of legislation suppos-
eddy for the public good I beg to sub
NIT the following opinions of an emf
nent jurist, well known and authorita-
{. tive, bearing on the question.
II Justice Brewer, now of the Supreme
= Court, said in referring to certain deci-
SionS of the Supreme Court in Kansas
in 1886 on a similar subject:
But I am not content to leave this
case upon these authoritative sugges-
tons of the Supreme Court. AS a new
matter, ii is clear to me that there is
a Federal question giving right of re-
moval; and here 1 assert these PROPOSE
tons: First, debarring a man by ex-
press prohibition from the use of his
property for the sake of the public is
taking of private property for public
uses. 1t is the power to use and not
the mere title which gives value to
property. Give a man the fee simple
title to a flour mill, coupled with an
absolute prohibition on its use, and of
what value is it to him? In the most
common and ordinary cases of taking
private property for public uses, the
condemnation of the right of way for a
railroad. the title is not Invested. The
owner still retains the fee simple and
ne is only debarred from the use. Whe:
the railroad abandons the use he re
takes it.
Il assert, secondly, that natural
equity as well as constitutional guaran-
tee forbids such a taking of private
property for public good without com
pensation. In the case of the State vs..
Mugler, % Kas., 252, this question was
presented to Supreme Court of Kansas,
and as a member of that court 1 then
expressed this opinion. am aware
that my brethren differed with me and
the court held that the state Constitu-
ton carried no such proposition. In
view of that decision I shall have little
to say in respect to the guarantees of
the state Constitution. 1 may, how
ever. be permitted to say. and do it
with the highest respect for the mem
bers of that court and with the utmost
Difference to its opinion and Judgment,
that in the light of the frequent discus
sions Of the question since that decision
AMI the more I reflected thereon, the
more profoundly am I convinced that
the guarantees of safety and protection
to private property contained within
our state Constitution forbid that any