The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-02-23
4 Advertiser Bureau,
 Mobile, Feb. 22.


 In the City Court this morning Judge Semmes rendered an important decision on the power of the city to the city levied license taxes against the wholesale or keg beer dealers which thy paid. In March, 1904, when the license ordinance for the ensuing year was being made up in committee that license was heavily increased and the dealers protested against 1t as un- reasonable. They took legal advice and being advised that they could not be taxed by the city at all. concluded to resist payment. The city license officer had the defendants arrested, and before the Recorder the case was argued on briefs and, after long con alteration, the Recorder found them guilty and assessed fines against them. They appealed to the City Court and, in the trials just had. the court de- cided in favor of the defendants. The conclusion of Judge Semmes is that the city has no power to levy a license selling beer by the keg in original packages brewed in States other than Alabama. because they are protected by the provisions of the United States Constitution respecting interstate com merce.
 The city was represented by City Attorney Boone. and the defendants by Messrs. Fitts and Stoutz. It is understood that the city authorities are considering the question of taking an appeal to the Supreme Court.
 The cases were against Meyer, Jossen & Co.,, S. Richard & Sons, Thomas Mar tin and Ferdinand Phillips. They were all alike and one decides all
 The judges opinion is as follows; The City of Mobile
 Ferdinand Phillips.
 This Is a proceeding in which the City of Mobile prosecutes the defen- dant for carrying on the business of selling beer by the barrel, half barrel or quarter barrel. The proceeding was commenced before the Recorder of Mobile and brought to this court by appeal. The defendant sets up two matters as a defense; first, that the City of Mobile had no legal right to impose the license upon any person who had taken out wholesale liquor license or. wholesale grocer license, and second, if 1t did have such right, the defendant is engaged exclusively in interstate commerce and is therefore protected by the constitution of the United States. @
 1t is insisted by the defendant that ,Ehe city has no power to impose a wholesale beer license tax in addition to a wholesale liquor license tax, on the same partnership; this proposition Is settled against him by the case of the City of Mobile vs. Richards & Sons. 9S Ala, p. 594. unless Section 43 of the present city charter is to be so con- strued as to avoid that decision. The section so far as applicable is: Pro vided, that not more than one license under this act shall be assessed against or collected from partners trading on business done under q firm name" The court holds that this section means that when a partnership takes out a license to carry on a business no farther license shall be required of the partners, as individuals, to carry on the same business The legislature never intended that a partnership could carry on any number o1 distinct businesses under one license and that a corporation or an individual could not. yet this would be the result if the contention of the defendant be sustain ed. as the section speaks of partner ships only.
 As to the second proposition. The agreed statement of facts shows, be- yond question, that the defendant is only engaged in interstate commerce and it Is eontended that no State or municipal license or tax can be en- forced against him by reason of the interstate commerce clause of the con- stitution of the United States, unless