Perth Amboy evening news. [volume] (Perth Amboy, N.J.) 1903-1959, 1906-08-08
MUS LIFT
SCREENS
Justices Fort, Reed and Trench.
ard Hold that Clause Of Ex-
Cise Law Is Valid. f.
QUO WARRANTO TAKEN.
State Has Right TO Order Saloon
Interiors Exposed to View
from Outside.

That the screen provision in the
new liquor act is good law was the
decision of Justices Fort, Reed and
terday in the Hudson county court
house at Jersey City. The court also
heard yesterday the argument in the
quo warranto proceeding instituted
by the Jersey City excise board that
was legislated out by the new act
against the board appointed by the
county Judge. The decision was re-
served, but the court refused to order
stay, and the new board will con-
tinue in power pending the decision.
The screen clause was attacked by
the Liquor Dealers Association and
Hugh Meehan, of Jersey City, became
the nominal complainant. This was
a certiorari proceedings, carrying up
for review resolution of the Jersey
City Excise board ordering the
screens removed on Sundays and on
election day during the hours that the
polls are open.
The decision is broader than the
predictions of those who were con-
WINGED the act would be sustained. 1t
maintains the right of the legislature
to enact laws regulating the traffic,
even to prohibition. 1t is also held
that the legislature can vest that au-
thority in a municipality. The court
holds that a license is not a contract,
that 1t is merely a privilege, that
licenses may be classified and that
the rights of the citizen are not
abridged.
In dismissing the writ of certiorari
regarding the screen order the court
took occasion to say that even if sec
tion should be unconstitutional it's
weakness would not affect any other
portion of the act.
Representatives of the brewery in
terests and of the State Liquor Deal
ers' Association and others interested
in the fall of the law crowded the
musty main chamber of the old court
house to learn the fate of the statute.
They were drawn there by the under
standing that the decision would be
rendered today to settle the status of
the screen clause of the measure, so
far as the supreme court is concern
ed
At the hearing a week ago Mon
day two certioraris were argued. One
to test the constitutionality of the
screen clause, and the other to deter
mine the legality of the appointment
of the new Jersey City excise commits
sioners by the court of common pleas.
The latter was dismissed on the
ground that quo warranto was the
proper procedure to test the right of
a man or body of men in Office and
the one concerning the legality of the
screen clause was held under advise
ment
1t was the decision on the screen
case which was rendered yesterday.
1t was 11:15 o'clock when the three
Justices came upon the bench, and,
then, instead of proceeding with the
more absorbing case, they heard
motion in a case in which lawyers
from Trenton appeared.
At that time there were in court
Peter Backes, of Trenton, who was
counsel for the INSTRUMENTATION
committee of clergymen, who started
the agitation which resulted in the
original bill, and who at the last
hearing, by consent, appeared for
New Jersey in the screen case; Zieg-
ner & Lane, counsel for the Mayor
Pagan excise board, which contests
the rights of the board appointed by
Judge Blair, under the act, and for
mer Assemblyman John Wahl Queen,
and Howard Cruise, counsel for the
county courts board. Former State
Senator Robert S. Hudspeth, counsel
for the State Retail Liquor Dealers
Association, was not present.
AS soon as the minor case had been
disposed of the decision on the screen
clause was rendered by the court.