The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-05-04
LIQUOR LICENSE
ISSUED In LOUISA
Only One Granted in the Entire
County.
THERE WAS A STOUT FIGHT
Judge Sims Gives Quite a Long and
Interesting Decision When the Order
Was Made Granting License.
County Much Interested.
tspec,ul p,sps,eh 10 rho Times

Especial Dispatch 10 -he Times.)
LOUISA, VA. May 3.-Liquor license
were granted to W. l.. G. Perkins, lessee
o. the restricted privileges owned by II.
.. Dickinson and Mr. Green of the
Louisa Hail. After The case had been
houy contested by the anti-saloon and
other temperance people.
AS q matter OF fact all other appli-
cants had been refused Except ]. II.
Shelton, who withdrew his before the
court passed. upon ~. therefore the con-
testants were confident by strenuous ef-
forts they would carry the town dry.
The granting of these license and the
courts reasons for doing so are of such
Importance and interest that the people
of this and adjoining counties take un-
usual interest n the decision delivered
by Judge Sims. and the order read
by him from the bench on Friday, March
18th.
THE DECISION.
The opinion is as follows:
In the consideration of all applica-
lions for liquor license we have TO bear
IN mind that in Virginia the sale of L.
quor is n lesali=ed traffic-the only limi-
tation being that the place must be "a
suitable. convenient and appropriate
place" and the person "a fit person
and one that will conduct an orderly
house"
However much. therefore we, as in
dividIals, may desire to put in practice
our different plans for The solution of
the great question of how best to control
the liquor traffic and remedy the great
evils resulting from the excessive and
intemperate use Of liquor in cases OF
the character Of that before the court.
we have only one course to pursue,
marked out for us by the law OF this
State which we must all adhere TO and
most of all myself under the oath which
have taken.
1t is needless, therefore. to consider
whether prohibition prohihits-whether
local option 80 q failure-whethcr q dis
pensary system or high license would
best solve the dinicuit question how
ever interesting and important these
questions may be. I am confined to the
more limited enquiry CT whether the
place IN question is q suitable. conve-
nient and appropriate place, and whether
the applicant is a fit person and will
conduct an orderly housa.
Now. upon this enquiry, my construc-
ton of the law is and has uniformly
been, that the court cannot consider the
moral effect OF the sale of liquor in any
community, however transcendent this
may be in Importance, and / recognize
that it is Of transcenderIt Importance,
over any mere material interests. Tho
Legislature by legalizing the traffic has
decided this question What the Legis-
lature has done the people have direct
edit and its enactments are but the
creature Of the people. The court can
only apply those enactments; it cannot
alter them.
ON MATERIAL INTERESTS.
My construction of the law has also
uniformly been that the court in Nir-
Einia can look only to the material in
terests involved-the question whether
the sale of liquor in any particular To-
cality will injure the business interests,
rights Of property and of person: and
{: so, TO what extent? is the enquiry as
TO the place. Is the injury serious ac-
tCal, extensive and approSimate-inmc-
dEateNgrowing out Of the sale Of liquor
in the particular Dlace2s and does such
injury to such rights of others in the
particular community SO preponderate as
tn over-balance the right of the appli-
cant to conduct his business in such
community. when viewed in the light OF
what would result in the greatest ma
terial good to the greatest number IN
such community. This seems to me &c
be the enquiry. to the place. to which
the law restricts the court. In othe,
words, the applicant for license. under
the law. proposes TO engage in a lawful
business and he has as much RICH,
TO engage in it as any other cti-
zen has to engage in any othe,
business, provided that such business al
such place will not result in peculiar
and undue injury to the business. per-
sonal or property rights Of others. This
is the fundamental law of society which
governs all its members alike. II is not
peculiar to those who deal in liquor. II
Is manifest, therefore that ..,e cour,
has no arbitrary power in the premises
rs many think.
Coming then to the concrete question
Of person and place:
AS TO the person of the applicant or O.
Ills agent who viii conduct this business
In the light of the evidence adduced an
he will keep an orderly house.
AS TO THE PLACE.
Now rs to the place: Upon this cues
ton my construction Of the law Ia:
uniformly been that the idea of proximity
TO those whose business. property o:
personal rights are claimed to be IT.
furcd. is Of prime Importance. 1t is trlt;
this Is a relative ternr-rot defined in III.
Jaw by fixed distance of yards or o
miles AT the same time it is none tn
less more nlaterial; and it Is the mos
tangible and satisfactory element In suct
cases. And the evidence In any parlcu
Ter case must show that the proposes
1lace Of sale Of liquor IL unsuitable, 4