The Minneapolis journal. [volume] (Minneapolis, Minn.) 1888-1939, 1904-11-05

prevail Of every citizen who has the gem sgs
eral welfare of the community at heart,
altho even in such a case the imposition
of such a fine, amounting as it may to
$500, seems excessive, and open to legal
objections, when you consider that the
limit Of fine fixed by statue for the M
fragrant violation of an ordinance is $100. b
(See State vs. Larson, SO Mimi, p. 1889 A
By reason of an unfortunate accident b
am prevented from giving the legal "
question arising here the consideration @
which I desired.
But the ordinance is open to another
objection in that it is too sweeping in its Is;
provisions. 1t compels a forfeiture Of the
half of the license fee in every in
stance, and without regard to the cause n
of the revocation. Evidently your honor.
able body overlooked the fact that the 5s
mayor is frequently called upon to revoke
a license where the holder thereof is not55
guilty Of any infraction of the law what
ever, but for mere business reasons isna
obliged to retire from the liquor business,
! or to change the location of his saloon.
| This is manifestly different from a re-
| vocation for cause, where salooI45s
keeper wilfully sells to minor or an hab-ss
| itual drunkard, or conducts a disorderly
place. There is every reason why the
saloonkeeper should be punished for suchsf
| disregard of the law and public morals,
l and it is equally true that there is noAa
because some business exgency, compelse
| him to retire from the business or to
/ change the location of his saloon; altho (
a fee should be required sufficient to =
cover the expenses incident to making
i the necessary changes mi the controllers :
! office. =. '-
/ 1t often occurs, however, that on ac-gz
count of sickness the saloonkeeper is
obliged to retire from business, and as5a
/ the necessary changes in the controllers
recourse is to have it revoked and OBJ.
tain refund from the city, as also in
case of death. 1t seems a matter of JUS
tice, considering the amount involved, 2;
that some provision should be made for
such cases; also, in case of the destruc-
ton of his building by fire, or otherwise g
the license is not transferable, the only
except the store number named therein,
is it not manifesty unjust that the dealer
should lose his license fee as we'll as hiss
: property by such an accident? It seems
to me beyond reason that a man in such
a case should be mulcted in the sum of
perhaps $500. AS our supreme court said
in the case above cited, in constituting
the penalty on the bond Of a saloon
u keeper, 1.-THE legislature may see fit in
> the future, by express enactment, to ex5.
, act the pound of flesh, but for many
Il years, at least since Shylock demanded
strict compliance with the condition Of
his bond only to meet disaster, such eX-4
:. y. actions have not met with favor in or out
y of judicial tribunals
= Most if not all licenses under our ordi-
- nances are transferable, but as liquor IL
censes are not, and manifestly should not.
= be, some provision must surely be made
II for justice to the unfortunate, as we'll as
e to the tranSgressor. ..S
= For the reasons above assigned I am
lie constrained to return the ordinance i.
question to your honorable body without
al ciCr t11rn nd tn no "a
l. you may amend the same to meet the OBJ
)e jectiOnS above made --..s
Us Respectfully submitted.
e, j. G. Haynes, Mayor.