The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-02-14


4 by Judge Estee yesterday, and the
Injunction as prayed for by the local
agents Of the mainland breweries, re-
straining Treasurer Wright from the
further issuance OF $3.50 licenses was
granted.
The decision I'm effect means that no
more license FOR the exclusive sale OF
Honolulu made beer can be issued, but
whether or not 1t will nullfy the IL
censes OF the saloons now selling Primo
beer is still an open question. The de-
cision has been appealed from. ana
pending it's final determination the sa-
looms now doing business under Primo
licenses may continue to operate, I'M
less further action is taken by the
plaintiffs; though the order in
the case would operate To pre-
vent renewal of such licenses and at
the outside the sale of Primo beer
would terminate within six months,
though according to one view every
saloon keeper holding "A $3.50 license
could be prosecuted for alleged liquor
selling, the license having been declared
void.
The plaintiffs in this case, which was
brought to test the law are: Macfar-
lane & Co, Ltd, agents for the Val
Blatz Brewing Company of Milwaukee,
and the John Wieland Brewing Com
pany of San Francisco; II. Hackfeld a.
Co, Ltd, agents for the Anheuser-
Busch Brewing Company of st. Louis;
w. c. Peacock g. Co., Ltd. agent for
the Pabst Brewing Company of Mil
waukee American Brewing Company
of st. Louis, and Buffalo Brewing Com
pany of Sacramento; Ed. Hoffschaeger
* Co., Ltd, agents for the Fred Miller
Brewing Company of Milwaukee; St c.
Sayers, agent for the Seattle Brewing
& Malt CO.. Lawrence II. Dee, agent
for the Capital Brewing Company of
Olympia.
All the plaintiffs but Dee hold deal
ers' or wholesalers licenses at $500,
while the latter paid $1,000 per year.
After reciting the facts of the COM
plant, and the statutes and Legislative
acts under which the licenses We're is-
sued, Judge Estee, in reference to the
$3.50 licenses, said:
But as a condition precedent to the
issuance of said license, each applicant
was required to execute a bond in the
penal sum of $1,000 conditioned among
other things as follows:
Second: That he will not sell or 9TH
erwise dispose of on the premises for
which he is licensed, any wines, malt
liquors or spirits of any description
whatsoever except such beer manufac-
tured in Honolulu and under said above
mentioned act uhe act TO license the
brewing of malt liquors in Honolulu
Plaintiff Exhibit 2.
I'm other words, said licensees are
given the privilege of selling at retail
Honolulu manufactured beer under H.
censes which are to be paid for at the
rate of $3.50 per annum, upon condition
that they do not either store or sell
upon the premises any foreign manu-
featured beer or other spirits.
From the testimony of the defend
ant, w. II. Wright, it appears that q
of these licenses were issued between
July l, 1901, and November %, 1901
and the testimony further shows thai
certain of the licensees are doing bust
ness Hereunder"
The demand made upon the Treas
urer by the plaintiffs for $3.50 licenses
and his refusal to issue them is set out
and the court says:
mo licenses as demanded were evei
issued to the complainants or any one
Of them, as in the language of the de-
PENDANT in his answer on file herein
in the exercise of the discretion vested
IN him, he refused to issue the license!
kereinabove requested and still refuse!
10 issue the same
while the real issue in this case il
whether chapter 46 of the Session Law.
of 1888 NOW part V, chapter Al of The
Penal Laws of the Hawaiian Islands
1879 is unconstitutional and void by
reason of its discrimination against tn,
beer products Of the other States anC
Territories of the United States, We
the jurisdiction of the court on othe
grounds has been assailed upon tn,
hearing, although no plea thereto wa!
raised by defendants answer.
I'm the matter of jurisdiction tw,
questions are to be considered by tn,
court:
First; Is there a constitutional ques
ton involved in the case? and Second
Do the facts in the case show al
amount of injury sufficient to enable
the court to assume and retain juris
dlction in accordance with the provis
ions of the law giving jurisdiction 4
Circuit Courts in certain cases?
Section / of the act of 1883 Vol %
Statutes of the United States, p. 434
amendatory of the act of 1875, provides
as follows:
1.-The Circuit Courts of the United
States shall have original cognizanc
of all suits of a civil natur
at common law or in equity where tn
matter in dispute exceeds exclusive o
interest and costs the sum or value o
$4,000 and rising under the constitution
or laws of the United States
There is no doubt as to the bill o
complainants showing upon its face
sufficient case for the court to TAX
jurisdiction originally. alleging as |
does both the statutory amount of in
jury and the fact that the Territorial
statute complained of is in violation o
the Constitution of the United States
and no plea having been filed on tn
part of the defendant TO the juris
Ao hy