The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-02-14


footing in 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 47a to 4Sl inclusive,
they are grossly discriminating against
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.
VINO, referring to conversation with
Mr. Robertson, one of the attorneys for
the compliments, in relation to the
issuance of a license to them. said:
You informed me what you wanted
and told you that l would not issue a
license under the law (act of 1881 to
sell foreign beer, and you then told me
that perhaps there would be a 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 it. For a manufacturer of the
mainland beer to sell beer in this Terri
tory, he must pay to the Territory a
They must obtain retail liquor Ii
cense. Q. For a thousand dollars a
year? A. Yes, sir; which permits them
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. O. And
they can sell homemade beer for $3.50
a license, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
In other words, any man to whom
a license is issued to sell and who will
give bond to sell none but Honolulu
DreWed beer, can do so for a license
fee of $3.50 year; but any man who
desires to sell imported beers at retail
must take out retailers license and
pay $1,000 year, or exactly four times
the amount he would have to pay to
sell home-b rewed beer alone, and while
paying this $1,000 a year, is not even
then permitted to sell the Honolulu
commodity Hereunder.
Clear discrimination is shown as
against the manufacturers of the for
eign commodity, for which they have
a right through their agents to COM
plain, and the fact that the $1,000 Ii
cense also covers the sale of spirituous
liquors other than beer is a mere Incl
dent; the fact remains that the import
ed beers cannot be sold except upon a
license costing four times the amount
of the license to sell the home brewed
beer. Such a discriminat ton is repug
nant to the constitution of the United
States, and clearly in violation of its
provision hereinbefore set forth.
1T is true that under the police pow
ers of a State or Territory, it can reg
ulate the sale of all intoxicating liq-
~
sale entirely. but in doing so it cannot
discriminate against the stranger with
in it's gates. The local laws of this Ter
ritory, far from prohibiting the sale Of
spirituous liquors herein, directly con-
template the continuance Of the liquor
traffic, and derive revenue therefrom
by licensing it. Nothing is better set
tied, however, than that a State can
not constitutionally enact laws diScrim-
mating in favor of it's own citizens or
in favor or against the citizens of any
other State of the United States. On
this rests one of the most sacred rights
of citizenship. If the laws of one State
or Territory can discriminate against
the property rights of the citizens of
another State or Territory in one thing,
they can do so in all things. 1t would
hardly seem necessary to refer to au-
thorities sustaining this proposition.
But it was held by the Supreme Court
of the United States in the case of
Walling VS. Michigan, 116 United States
446, which is case in relation to the
constitutionality of a statute imposing
a tax on persons engaged in the sale
of liquors to be brought into and sold
within the State:
"A discriminating tax imposed by
State operating to the disadvantage of
the products of other States when in
troduced into the first mentioned
State is in effect, a regulation in re-
straint of commerce among the States
and as such is a usurpation of the pow
er conferred by the Constitution upon
the Congress of the United States.
Il am therefore of the opinion that
chapter IS of the Session Laws of 1888
now known as Part V of chapter Al of
the Penal Laws of the Hawaiian ISL
ands, 1897 entitled Sale OF Malt LID
uors,' is unconstitutional and void.
Let the injunction issue as prayed for.
"ESTEE, Judge"
NO MORE CHEAP LICENSES.
rhara ic of