Waterbury evening Democrat., 1903-07-24
STRINGENT LIQUOR LAWS.
Commissioners Formerly Refused Ap- plications at Their Own Discretion.

plicatiohs at Their Own Discretion
 The liquor laws that were made so stringent and mandatory by the com mission appointed by Governor Mclean during the legislature of 1901, are prac- tlcally back where they were up to that time. put there by the legislature re- ceMly deceased.
 One of the most unfavorable and widely criticised amendments made by the commission was that which made it impossible for the county commis- s1oners to grant liquor license in any place within 200 feet of a church, school, cemetery or public building. Up to that time it was discretionary with the commissioners to act in such appli- cations, but the revised law made 1t mandatory on their part to refuse all such applications for licenses This was one of the first things done by the commission and the repeating of it was one of the first acts of the legislature.
 The revision commission also made it serious matter for anyone other than saloon keeper or his servant or agent to have been found on his prem ises during illegal hours. The com mission made it a crime, punishable by a fine, or sentence equal to that to which the liquor dealer was liable. The old law made such an act Unable to the amount of ST and costs, which invariably meant $17. The revised law imposed fine from S1O up to $1OO with costs. The law as amended reads:
 Every person who, with intent to purchase intoxicating liquor, shall en- ter any place of any kind or description in which spirituous and intoxicating liquors are licensed to be sold or ex- posed for sale, during the hours in which 1t is unlawful for such place to be open for the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors, or who, shall pur- chase intoxicating liquors in any such place, or of the proprietor of such place, or of any of his servants or agents, either in such place or else where, during such hours, shall be fined not more than ST; provided, that this section shall not apply to the proprietor of such place, nor to his servants, nor to officers or other persons who may visit such place for the purpose of as certaining if the law is being violated therein. nor to any person who shall testify to any such violation by the proprietor, or his servants, or agents.
 approved, May IL. lSUS.
 Under the revised laws a liquor deal CT lost his license and his bond and de- barred himself from obtaining another license on being once found guilty of violating the laws. This law stands, but it is left to the discretion of the court to give certificate of recom- mendation. The law says: "Provived that if upon the first conviction the court shall not be of the opinion that the license of the person so con- victed shall not be revoked and that the bond upon his license shall not be forfeited, etc" The law adds, how ever: "But in the absence of such cer- tifcate, or for any subsequent convic- ton, or for the forfeiture of bond in a subsequent prosecution, or for the settlement of subsequent prosecution upon payment of any sum, the license shall be revoked and the bond forfeited in the manner now provided by law for such revocation and forfeiture upon a first prosecution or conviction. And in all cases where conviction or other disposition of a prosecution renders the bond liable to be forfeited and the H. cense to be revoked, the justice or clerk of the court shall forthwith mail a copy of the judgment to the county treas urer who shall notify the county com missioners. the cost of which copy shall be included in the taxable costs.
 'tSec 2. The provisions of this act shall relate to and affect all cases of and prosecutions for violations of the laws concerning the sale of spirituous and intoxicating liquors since the first day of July, 1902"