The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1902-02-14
JUDGE ESTEE SAYS PRIMO
LICENSE LAW IS INVALID
The Mainland Beer Has the Same
Rights in the Territory as the
Honolulu Brew.

other appropriate form OF proceeding.
The case Is not 90 be tried by thu par
ties as u there was "a plea 90 the juris-
diCtion when no such plea has been
fled
This is not an action at law. II is
an application for an injunction and
therefore within the equity jurisdiction
of the court The injury complained of
If any be shown. is continuing one,
I and IL has been frequently held that in
1 a suit in equity where an injunction is
asked for. the amount i'm dispute is not
the amount in controversy, but rather
| the value Of the object to be gained by
| the bill"
After quoting several former decis-
| ions as to the question Of injury, the
court says
And while il is true that the com
! plainants did not all establish a clear
pecuniary loss, yet ii is apparent that
| each of them was injured in his indi-
vdual right to free commerce In the
| infringement thereof, by this discrim-
| mating statute, and in addition to this
| common injury sustained by all, there
| was, in the estimation of the court suf-
| ficient specific pecuniary loss shown by
| at least two Of the compliments. to-
| wit: Peacock a Co. and l.. II. Dee, in
! damage to each of them by reason OF
| the falling off of sales since the issu-
ance Of the licenses to sell the Ho-
| nolulu brewed beer to meet the re-
| quirements of the statutes in relation
to the amount Of damage involved in "A
| suit to give this court jurisdiction, and
| especially as IL appears that this in
| jury will be a continuing one. the
amount of which cannot now be clearly
estimated in dollars and cents.
1T would seem apparent therefore
that the jurisdiction is shown by at
least two OF the complainants."
Referring to the question of consti-
tutional rights, Judge Estee says:
Under the state of facts disclosed in
this case. are the compliments, while
| selling the beers of the different per-
sons and corporations. citizens of 9TH
err States, for whom they respectively
act as agents in Honolulu on an equal
footing in a free market with the man
ufacturers of home brewed beer?'
The privileges conferred by the vari-
Gus forms of licenses are contrasted
and the court concludes:
1T seems to be clear that upon the
face of sections 479 to 4S1 Inclusive
they are grossly discriminating against
a foreign manufactured commod-
ity, in this instance foreign
manufactured beer. And this is made
absolutely plain from the testimony
: of Mr.. Wright, the defendant herein
who, referring to n conversation with
Mr. Robertson, one of the attorneys for
the complainants, in relation to the
: issuance of a license to them, said
You informed me what you wanted
and told you that | would not issue q
license under the law (act of 1889 70
sell foreign beer and you then told mt
that perhaps there would be suit
brought against me. | re-
fused to issue a license under that Law
for the sale of beer manufactured out.
} side of Honolulu The court: Let Us
get at ii. For a manufacturer of tins
mainland beer to sell beer in this Terri.
tory, he must pay to the Territory q
thousand dollars year, Is that so? A
They must obtain retail liquor H.
: cense q. For thousand dollars Q
year? A. Yes, sir; which permits then
to sell everything. Q. But they cannot
sell that imported beer unless they
have one of those thousand dollar Ii
, censes? A. That is correct. @. AND
they can sell home made beer for $25
: license, Is that correct? A. Yes. sir
I'm other words, any man to whom
license is issued to sell and who vii
give bond to sell none but Honolulu
brewed beer, can do so for a licens,
fee of $3.50 a year; but any man whit
3 desires to sell imported beers at retail
|; must take out a retailers license an,
!, pay $1,000 a year. or exactly four time
the amount he would have to pay I,
9 sell home brewed beer alone, and Will
! paying this $1,000 a year, is not ever
t then permitted to sell the Honolulu
r commodity Hereunder
e Clear discrimination is shown n
$ against the manufacturers of the for
eign commodity, for which they haV,
, a right through their agents to com
g plain, and the fact that the $1,000 II
cense also covers the sale of spirituou
= liquors other than beer is a mere Incl
dent; the fact remains that the import
I ed beers cannot be sold except upon
e license costing four times the amour
of the license 10 sell the home breweC
beer. Such a discrimination is repug
nant to the constitution of the Unite,
States and clearly in violation of il
, provision hereinbefore set forth.
1T is true that under the police pow
S ers of a State or Territory, 1t can reg
ulate the sale of all intoxicating liz
d uors within its bounds, or prohibit sucl
e sale entirely, but in doing so 1t canno
e discriminate against the stranger with
e in its gates. The local laws of this Ter
I ritory, far from prohibiting the sale o
I spirituous liquors herein, directly con
n template the continuance of the liauo
traffic, and derive a revenue therefron
I by licensing it. Nothing Is better set
a tied, however, than that a State can
e not constitutionally enact laws d scrim
I mating in favor of its own citizens o
: in favor or against the citizens OF an,
j other State Of the United States. o.
1 this rests one of the most sacred right
; of citizenship. II the laws OF one Stat
e or Territory can discriminate agains
: the property rights of the citizens o