The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1902-01-20
A BAD SAILOR RIOT .BEER LICENSE CASE 7
4 THE NEW BOULEVARD USED AK yONABURGLAR
hrFORTs TO QUAsH PRIMO
LICENSES.
Judge Estee Overrules Demurrer IN
Favor Of Honolulu Brewery and Or
ders Trial at Once.

uel5 4lAhA az CAlGGs
In the United States Circuit court
this morning Judge Estee overrulled thel
demurrer to the complaint Of local li-l
quor dealers WHO are seeking to prevent
the issuance of Primo beer licenses anGI
to have those issued cancelled on the'
ground that the cheaper license for BaleI
Of the lo,sl pt0duct is an unlawful dis
elimination against Mainland brewerieeI
The case came up on argument Of the
defendants second demurrer After
hearing argument Judge Estee appear-l
ed inclined to regard the Hawaiian malt
license law as contrary to the national
commerce laws, and he overruled the
demurrer and order a trial without de-
lay. The first demurrer was sus-
tained, largely on the ground that thel
defendants had failed to show that they
were suffering any damages by reasOnI
of the act of Treasurer Wright "a issu-
ing the Primo licenses. The action was
brought by Macfarlane and Company etI
al VS.. Treasurer Wright, to restrain
him from issuing more such licenses.
Judge Silliman, appearing for Trea-
surer Wright this morning, argued that
the new complaint was more inconsis-
tent than the old one. "It is set forth
that the petitioners applied TO Treasurer
| Wright for license at $3.50 per year toI
sell malt liquors made in Honolulu"
said Silliman, when they already had
a general license to sell any kind of Ii
quors the Honolulu malt liquor incud-
| ed. Ihey were prevented from paying|
$3.50 more for a license to do something
they already had right to do, under
a license for which they paid 81 000 This
would seem to lay the foundation for
mandamus proceeding, to compel the
! Treasurer to issue the license that was
refused, rather than for this proceeding
] o. col
others.
The plaintiffs in this action are seek
! ing to perpetuate a monopoly. They
| want to insure a leadpipe cinch. byI
keeping out the competition Of those toI
whom the malt licenses have BEEN
granted 1t is set forth that their busi-
ness Is Of great value and highly pro-
ntable and that their sales of malt beer
! nave been greatly lessened and prOfits|
reduced reason o. the competition
of the Honolulu beer men,"
Attorney J. j. Dunno, in reply at
tackled the Hawaiian statute as con-
/ trary to the law Of the United States
and discriminating against breweries on
] the Mainland. The dealer who gets
| one of these licenses to sell the product
of the local brewery" he said puts up
a bond of $1,000. In that boifd 1t Is pro-
yided that he shall not sch any other
| beer than that made in Honolulu. nor
allow any other to be sold on his pre-
/ misses"
A. G. M. Robertson, also appearing
! for the plyaintiffs, discussed the license
matter at length. He claimed that the
statement of Silliman, that the plaintiffs
! licenses already gave them the right
to sell Primo, as well as mainland beers,
| was correct only as applied to one of
! the six plaintiffs. Two of the plaintiffs
| Hackteld and Company and Hoffschla-
ger and Company, have wholesale Ii
! censes,' said Robertson. under which
I they are allowed to sell liquors Of all
kinds in original packages. They are
agents FOR several American breWeries
on the Mainland. They desire to retail
this beer in competition with the beer
from the states. but in order TO do so
they have TO pay a license of 81, 600 a
year whereas the Honolulu beer Is sold
| under a license of $3.50.
| 'Ihree others of the defendants have
dealers licensed They are Macfarlane
and Company Peacock and Company
and Sayers They are allowed under a
license costing $500 a year, to sell IL
quors in quantities of not less than one
gallon. They applied to sell their beers
In competition with the Honolulu beer
on an equal footing but they are COM
PEELED to pay an annual license Of twice
as much as the Honolulu concern
'One of the plaintiffs, l.. II. Dee, has
already the right to sell Honolulu beer
as well as the other beers, by the bot
tie or glass, as the case may be- He is
the agent for the Olympic brewery of
olympia Washington. But he can only
sell their beer when he pays a license
of four times as much as the men who
sell the Honolulu beer The fact that
ne gets at the same time the right to
sell whiskey and gin and wine is of nc
value to the Olympic brewery, which
wants to be on an equal footing with
the Honolulu brewery and its $3.50 a
years licenses"
Robertson cOntended that the Hawai-
ian law providing for the Honolulu
beer license was clearly a discrimina-
ton against Mainland breweries, and
p therefore unconstitutional. Dunno ar
gued to the same effect "The federal
courts are quick to interfere to protect
business from such determinations, "
said Dunn.
"They protect all lawful business. "
said the court, in such cases" Dunno
2 replied that brewing was a lawful busi-
ness.
At the conclusion of the argument the
| demurrer was OveTruled The defen-
dant was given till Thursday to answer
the complaint and the case was set fol
/. | trial on Friday morning next.