Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1902-02-13

glass or bottle on the premises therein
specified between the hours of half |
past o'clock in the morning and half |
past II o'clock at night except Sun
days"
Gross Discrimination.
It seems to be clear that upon the |
face OF sections 479 to iS1 inclusive, |
they are grossly discriminating
against foreign manufactured cont.
modify, in this instance foreign manu |
featured beer. And this Is made abso' ,
lutely plain from the testimony Of Mr.
Wright. the defendant herein, who, &C
ferring to a conversation with Mr..
Robertson, one of the attorneys for
the complainants. in relation to the "a
suance of license to them, said:
You informed me what you wanted
and | told you that would not issue
, license under that law Act of 1881 10
sell foreign beer and you then tod me
that perhaps there would be a suit
brought against me. | re-
fused to issue license under that law
for the sale of beer manufactured out
side of Honolulu. The Court: Let MS
, get at it.. For a manufacturer of the
mainland beer to sell beer in this Ter
I ritory, he must pay to the Territory
, thousand dollars year, is that 50? A.
! They must obtain a retail liquor II.
. cense. Q. For a thousand dollars a
= year? Yes, sir; which permits them
, TO sell also. permits them to sell every.
:. thing. q. But they cannot sell that
!. imported beer unless they have one of
; these thousand dollar licenses? A. That
y is correct. Q. And they can sell home
made beer for $3.50 license, is that
correct? A. Yes, sir.
In other words. any man to whom
y license is issued to sell and who will
u give bond to sell none out Honolulu
= brewed beer can do so for a license
" fee of $3.50 year; but any man who
y desires to sell imported beers at retail
% must take out retailers license and
Z pay $1,000 a year, or exactly -FOUR
l. times the amount he would have ID pay
to sell home brcwed beer alone, and
s. while paying thdis $1,000 year, is not
e. even then permitted to sell the Homo.
u lulu commodity hereunder.
y Clear discrimination Is shown as
D against the manufacturers of the for
g. eign commodity, for which they have
N right through their agents to com
IN plain. and the fact that the $1,000 IL
H. Cense also covers the sale of spiritu
Is Gus liquors other than beer is a mere
IL incident; the fact remains that tho
II imported beers cannot be sold except
upon a license costing four times tn,
r' amount of the license to sell the home
al brewed beer. Such discrimination II
rcpugnant to the Constitution of tn,
at United States. and clearly in violation
Ut OF its provision hereinbefore set forth
u No Prohibition Here.
ST. II Is true that under the police pow
M ers of State or Territory. 1t can reg
rs ulate the sale of all intoxicating liz
To- uOrs within its bounds, or prohibi
is such sale entirely. but in doing so /
X" cannot discriminate against the stran
eE ger within its gates The local law
or Of this Territory, far from prohibitinl
Is the sale OF spirituous liquors herein
on directly contemplate the continuance
be OF the liquor traffic, and derive a rev
d9 enue therefrom ny licensing II. Moth
TO- ing Is better settled. however. thar
lis that State cannot Constitutionally on
en- act laws discriminating in favor o
p It's own citizens or in favor or agains
u" the citizens of any other State of tn
Ell United States. On this rests one o
the most sacred rights of citizenship
lie II the laws of one State or Terr'tor
lts can discriminate against the prOpert
az. rights of the citizens of another stat
81 or Territory in one thing, they can d
)'t so in all things. II would hardly seen
VS. necessary to refer to authorities sus
[. tanning this proposition. But II wa
81 held by the Supreme Court of tn
United States in the case of Wall!n
VS.. Michigan 1l6 U. S. 4i6, which Is
va case in relation to the constitutional
no ty of statute imposing tax on pei
ID sons engaged in the sale of liquors I
20 be brought into and sold within tn
jn State:
III "A discriminating tax imposed by
bc State operating to the disadvantage 9
N the products OF other States when II
civ trOduCed into the first mentioned stat
n. is in effect, a regulation in restrain
of commerce among the States and q
rl, such is a usurpation OF the power "Ul
o ferred by the Constitution upon III
Congress OF the United States.
oil So. too. in the case of WebbCr VI
cd Virginia, 1903 U. S. 34i, referring to III
n, Statute of the State of Virginia, whiC
oil provided for the payment Of licens
.c,. fee for the right to sell sewing Iii
n, chimes made in other States, the Con-
on say page 35D:
Commerce among the States in an
,te commodity can only be free when tt
IN. commodity is exempted from all di
eliminating regulations and burdeI
he imposed by local authority by reasc
M. of its foreign growth or manufacture
raj Leloup VS.. Mobile 1877 U. S. $40; Wa
ton vs.. Missouri, u U. S. 275, and ais
IN the very recent case of Lansing V
10 Davies & Co, 10 Haw. 2GG, which is
'or the same effect.
th. Unconstitutional and Void.
ely am therefore OF opinion that cha
ual ter iG of the Session Laws of 1888 no
an. known as Part V of chapter Al OF Il
Penal Laws of the Hawaiian Island
an 1897" entitled Sale of Malt Liquors
der Is unconstitutional and void. Let Il
SEES injunction issue as prayed for
The ESTEE, Judge.
To- Dated, February 10. 1909.
l.