The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-09-21
SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS
THE LIQUOR LICENSE LAW

If dental examiners, equalization O
taxes, medical examiners, prison in
spect0rs and OF education may be au
u thorized by statute TO administer oath.
: touching any matter or thing whereo,
= they have Jurisdiction or cognizance
= by law ana to decide finally and with.
out appeal such matters as properly
; come within their jurisdiction, and yet
e II would be a missioner to classify
Y such boards as courts of justice. They
would be lawful bodies even if Con-
gress had enacted that no court could
be established by the Territorial Leg
. islature and that the judicial power
of the Territory should be vested sole
ly in the supreme, circuit and dis
trict courts. See ms. & Lumber Co.
V. Macfarlane, ID Haw. 4S9. Further
more, the act (Sec. ~, in declaring
| that 1.-The exercise of the power, au-
thority and discretion by this act vest
ed in the board shall be final in each
case and shall not be renewable by,
or appealable to, any court or trib-
unal,'' does not make the board in
| dependent of judicial supervision. It's
power, while subject only to the limi-
| tations and directions in this act con-
tained,' is strictly subordinate to those
limitations and directions. If it as
] sumes to do anything which is I'M
| authorized by the act or declines to
| do what the act requires of it, OBJ
servance of the law will be required
| by judicial authority when properly in
| voked. No review may be possible as
| long as the board observes the limi-
tations and directions contained in the
act, and yet the wholesome jurisdic-
ton established by law continues in |
full force to prevent abuses of dis |
cretionary power and for the enforce |
ment of legal rights. In other words, |
the board is not above the law which |
creates it.
Cd We cannot sustain the defend
ants contention that he is deprived
of his property by reason of anything
contained in Act 119. 1t does not ap-
pear whether he bought his beer after
or before April 80, 1907, the date of
the approval of the act, but, if he
bought it after, he did so with knowl-
edge that he could not sell unless au-
thorized by the license which he then
held or by a license which he ex-
pected to obtain under the new act.
If he bought before that date, he had
no assurance or right to believe that ,
the license would be renewed to en- 1
able him to sell after its expiration,
If the act should continue in force, or
that the act would not be repealed
If the public safety or the public ,,
morals require the discontinuance of
any manufacture or traffic, the hand
Of the Legislature cannot be stayed
from providing for its discontinuance,
Oy any incidental inconvenience which :
individuals or corporations may suffer.
All rights are held subject to the
police power of the State" Beer Co. I
v. Massachusetts, 81 U. S. 3d. {
If he bought after the act was ap-
proved, he also knew that he had no :
vested right to a license under it. 1t
s unnecessary to discuss the question .
.urther since the Organic Act, Sec.
%, provides, NOR shall spirituous or
liquors be sold except
lnder such regulations and restrictions
Is the Territorial Legislature shall
'lovide,' SO that selling would be pro- y
libited in the absence of territorial y
egislation regulating or restricting it. y
As the present law expressly saves to ,
lin any rights accrued under Act 81, p
laws of 1905, if he had any cause of II
complaint it would be that the act $
provision for selling liquors which h
hould be on hand at the expiration of n
is license. Ia
3. We do not sustain the defend il
lnt's claim that the act is invalid in II
obtaining more than one subject, n
lamely. prohibition as well as regula- G
ion of sales, for the act does not pro- N
ibit to any further extent than is nee. l
ssary or proper in reasonable regula- Il
ion of such sales. Regulating sales
IMPLIES restricting, limiting and defin- Ct
ng their numbers and volume, and the B
lines and places of selling, and re- %
Iuires the prohibiting of sales not p
1ade in conformity with the regula- fe
ions. To entitle the act AN Act to tt
'rohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Lfq> II
or when Not Made in Accordance &C
nth the Regulations Hereof" or a,
When Not Made by Authority of Lii st
enses Granted Under the Provisions -
[ereof," would furnish no more hint of ju
s contents than is found in the title to
To regulate the Sale of Intoxicating fr
liquors" If the act had been entitled to
An Act to Regulate and Also, in Ger W
hin Cases, Prohibit the Sale of Intoxi- ed
ating Liquors. the title would give no TT
lore information imam IS given DY the IN
resent title. Many cases are cited by to
lie defendant which do not appear to lie
D as far as his contention. In Brown tn
IN ". Oberlin, Al 0. IS, Oberlin, under ur
State law authorizing Incorporated liz
llages to provide by ordinance tn
yainst the evils resulting from theI
lie of intoxicating liquors within the fir
mits of the corporation, passed an
'dinance declaring it unlawful to sell to-
toxicating liquors. It was held that fol
lie prohibitory ordinance was unau.
lorfzed. In Cantril V. Sainer, So Ia
regulating the use and sale of in 7
xicating liquors." was held not to au-
orize an ordinance which was "en-
rely prohibitory. There is no pre-
nse at regulation Sweet " Wa Al,
Lsh, Al Ind. II, holds that a law per- An
lifting towns to regulate all places
here intoxicating liquors are sold to Re
used on the premises" did not au- s
orize an ordinance prohibiting sales Ma
ate V. Fay, IA n. J. L. 474, holds that V
Ithority to prohibit all sale of intox- An
iting drinks and to license, regulate r
prohibit inns or taverns did not in Es-