The Penn's Grove record., 1906-08-31
BISHOPS LIQUOR LAW CONSTITUTIONAL.
Selling Liquor a Privilege Given BY
The State and Subject to
REGULATION OF Prohibition.

Notwithstanding the changes the pen
atty of the loss of the license for sales
on Sunday, and the requirement that
bars shall be exposed to public view
when the sale is forbidden is having a
good effect in the cities where Sunday
was unknown among saloons.
Because the law required the remov-
al of screens where Excise Boards de-
clared for tan appeal was made in Jer-
sey City to the State Supreme Court to
declare the law unconstitutional. The
Supreme Court of New Jersey has
quoted a decision of the U. S. Supreme
Court and declared the law constitu-
tiOnal.
Those not acquainted with the legal
standing OF the liquor business will
read the decision with interest, the
main part of which is published below.
1t is a resolution to require this clear
view from the public street on prohibit
ed days, of all places not within the
cepted classes, that we are asked to
declare void, because, it is claimed, that
the conferrmg of the power upon the
Excise Board to pass such a resolution
is unconstitutional.
Before considering this question it
might be well to state for c~learness, that
it would seem that the section under
review makes two Offenses. The one
by the terms of the act itself for failure
to keep a clearinterior view ofthe whole
of the bar or business rooms, Hfree
from obstruction OF screen, nOn-tranS-
parent glass, shade, blind, door, shutter
OF merchandise or other article, placed
in any of said rooms" The other re-
lates to any obstruction which prevents
a like clear view from the public street.
1t was evident that the legislatiyepur -
pose to prohibit in all cases, by force of
the statue itself, any obstruction ofthe
view, by any person, orany other person
within the bar orbusiness room, serving
or being served with liquor therein.
The interior of the bar OF business room
must be so arranged as to give at all
times an unObStructed view of the whole
interior, from the interior, and, when
the court Excise Board or other licens-
ing authority in any municipality shall
so require, the same unobStructed view
of the bar OF business room must exist
from the public street.
The resolution of the Excise Board
OF Jersey City here for review, requires
such unobstructed view from the public
street upon the prohibited days.
We are unable to find in this require
ment OF the statutes any uncOnstitut-
lonal f%esture, The right to regulate the
sale of Intoxicating liquors by the Legis-
l%ature, or by municipal or other author
ity under legislative power given, is
within the police power of the State,
and is practically limitless. 1t may ex-
tend to the prohibition of the sale alto
gether. A license is not'a contract. 1t
is a mere privilege.
1t is unnecessary to extend the dis
cussion of this question beyond the ex-
animation of the statute, and this brief
statement of its purpose, to show that
the act js q mara ,onulatiop of tbo cole
OF liquors, under IA license granted by
the State; which has been uniformly
held to be within the power of the Leg
lslature under the police power. While
the statute is discriminating, and does
seem to impose more restrictions upon
one class of dealers than upon another,
still, such a classification, of all dealers.
similarly situated, is entirely within the
legislative authority, and one of the
answers to the objection to the act. on
this ground, is that no one is compelled
to take out a license to engage in the
sale of intoxicants by retail, who does
not wish to do so, or who does not like
the law to which he is required to con-
form.
1t was urged that this act was in vio-
lation OF that part of the fourteenth
amendment of the Constitution of the
United States which reads as follows
"NO State shall make OF enforce any
law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United
States. Nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. MOI deny
to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws"
This clause of the Federal Constitu-
ton relates to those rights of the citizen
which may be called fundamental.
Those which belong of right to all citiz-
ems of a free government, and which
have at all times been enjoyed by the
citizens of the several States, Ward VS..
Md. u Wall, 430, Slaughter House
cases, 16 Wall, SO. Powell VS.. Com.
of Penn. 1877 u. S. 67S.
MI. Justice Field in Crowley VS..
Christensen, supra, says:
"1here is no inherent right IN a citizen to
sell Intoxicating liquors by retail; it as not a
privilege Of a citizen of the State or the United
States. IL may be entirely prohibited By State
legislation or limited in its %eULs."
The police power is inherent in the
several States and was left with them
our federal system of govern
ment, as the Constitution was original
ly ratified by the State and the four.
teenth amendment has not changed this
in any way.
The cases in the Supreme Court of
the United States and the several State
courts, affirming this principle, will be
found collected in:
n,nri,, I'D E-ol..l N