The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1902-02-14
JUDGE ESTEE SAYS PRIMO
LICENSE LAW IS INVALI ID
The Mainland Beer Has the Same
Rights in the Territory as the
Honolulu Brew.
Twenty-Five Saloons May Close as Result.
Temperance People Happy---No More
Cheap Licenses Will Be Issued -

IT HE PRIMO beer license law was
declared unconstitutional and void
= by Judge Estee yesterday, and the
injunction as prayed for by the local
| agents of the mainland breweries, re-
| straining Treasurer Wright from the
further issuance of $3.50 licenses was
granted.
The decision in effect means that no
more license for the exclusive sale of
Honolulu made beer can be issued, but
whether or not it will nullify the Ii
censes of the saloons now selling Primo
, beer is still an open question. The de-
cision has been appealed from, and
pending its final determination the sa-
looms now doing business under Primo
licenses may continue to operate, un-
less further action is taken by the
plaintiffs; though the order in
the case would operate to pre-
vent a renewal of such licenses and at
the outside the sale of Primo beer
would terminate within six months,
though according to one view every
could be prosecuted for alleged liquor
selling, the license having been declared
void.
The plaintiffs in this case. which was
brought to. test the law are: Macfar
lane & Co, Ltd, agents for the Val
Blatz Brewing Company of Milwaukee,
and the John Wieland Brewing Com
pany of San Francisco; II. Hackfeld &
Co., Ltd, agents for the AnheuSer-
Busch Brewing Company of st. Louis;
w. c. Peacock & Co., Ltd, agent for
the Pabst Brewing Company of Mil
waukee American Brewing Company
of St. Louis, and Buffalo Brewing Com
pany of Sacramento; Ed. Hoffschlaeger
& Co., Ltd, agents for the Fred Miller
Brewing Company of Milwaukee; st. c.
Sayers, agent for the Seattle Brewing
& Malt Co.; Lawrence H Dee. agent
for the Capital Brewing Company of
Olympia.
All the plaintiffs but Dee hold deal
ers' or wholesalers licenses at $500,
while the latter paid $1,000 per year.
After reciting the facts of the COM
plant, and the statutes and legislative
acts under which the licenses were is
sued, Judge Estee, in reference to the
$3.50 licenses, said:
But as a condition precedent to the
issuance of said license each applicant
was required to execute a bond in the
penal sum of $1,000 conditioned among
other things as follows:
Second: That he will not sell or 9TH
erwise dispose of on the premises for
which he is licensed, any wines. malt
liquors or spirits of any description
whatsoever except such beer manufac-
tured in Honolulu and under said above
mentioned act (the act to license the
brewing of malt liquors in Honolulu).
Plaintiff Exhibit 2.
In other words. said licensees are
given the privilege of selling at retail
Honolulu manufactured beer under IL
censes which are to be paid for at the
rate of $3.50 per annum, upon condition
that they do not either store or sell
upon the premises any foreign manu-
featured beer or other spirits.
From the testimony of the defend !
ant, w. H. Wright. it appears that %
of these licenses were issued between
July 1. 1901. and November %, 1901, |
and the testimony further shows tina 1t
ness Hereunder"
The demand made upon the Treas |
urer by the plaintiffs for $3.50 licenses
and the court says:
mo licenses as demanded were ever
issued to the complainants or any one |
of them. as in the language of the de- !
PENDANT in his answer on file herein. |
in the exercise of the discretion vested !
in him. he refused to issue the licenses |
hereinabove requested and still refuses
to issue the same.
While the real issue in this case is !
whether chapter 46 of the Session Laws |
of 1883 (now part V, chapter Al OF The f.,
Penal Laws of the Hawaiian Islands, !
1879 is unconstitutional and void by |
reason of its discrimination against the !
beer products of the other States and !
Territories of the United States. Yet
the Jurisdiction OF the court on other |
grounds has been assailed upon the I