The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1907-09-24
SUPREME COURT UpHOLDS
THE LIQUOR LICENSE LAW
(From Saturdays Advertiser.

fly OF the liQuof license law against
all the objections made to it and at
tacks made on 1t on behalf of the de-
fendant in the case OF the Territory
of Hawaii vs.. Jacntho Miguel. This
was the first case Brought to test the
law, and the points made were very
forcibly presented by T. NJ. Harrison
for the defendant. The Territory was
represented in the argument by E c.
Peters with Attorney General Hemen-
way on the brief. The facts of the
case are stated concisely in the opin-
ion by Chief Justice Hartwell, which
is given herewith in full:
OPINION OF THE COURT BY
HARTWELL, C. ].
The defendant was charged Julv s.
1907, before the district magistrate of
Honolulu with selling in Honolulu
July 6, 1907, certain intoxicating lia-
uor, known as beer, contrary to the
provisions of Act 119, Laws of 1907.
| He admitted the selling without a Ii
cense. The prosecution admitted that
he held license under Act 81, Laws
of 1905, which expired June 80, 1907,
and that the beer was part of the
stock held by him while holding the
license; that he applied for a license
under Act 119 and was refused by the
Board of License Commissioners; also
that before June 80, 1907, he applied to
the board to exchange his license for
a license under Act 119 and was re-
| fused, each application being in the
1 f1,-,
fendant was found guilty and senteno-
ed TO a fine of 500 and costs 81, from
which judgment he appealed to this
| court on points of law, in substance
as follows: Q In providing for ap-
pointment of Board of License Com
missioners with authority, in their
discretion, to refuse or grant applica-
tions for licenses and to take evidence
upon the applications with no appeal
| from their decisions, the act makes
the board a court with judicial powers
and functions whose acts are not sub
ject to review or control by any other
court; as the Legislature has no au-
thority to create any but inferior
courts (Sec. 81, Org. Act) the board
is unauthorized by law; (2) the act
deprives the defendant of his property
without due process of law, contrary
to the 18th amendment, he being pre-
vented by its operation from dispos-
ing, after the expiration of his license,
of the stock of liquors acquired by him
while holding a license under the Act
of 1905; 90 the act authorizes the
Board of License Commissioners to re-
fuse to grant any license and there
fore is a prohibitory law, and yet its
title, An Act to Regulate the Sale
of Spirituous Liquors, Repeating Act
81 of the Session Laws of 1906" does
not suggest the subject and therefore
the law is invalid by Sec. 40 of the
Organic Act requiring that each law
shall embrace but one subject which
shall be expressed in its 1itle;" (D the
act, in requiring higher license fees
for the sale of liquors manufactured
out of the Territory than for those
manufactured in the Territory by the
licensee, violates Sec. of Act 4 of the
Constitution giving to citizens of each
state AL privileges and immunities OF
citizens in the several states,'' and en-
croaches upon the exclusive power OF
|
AS the defendant, not being a for
eign manufacturer, has not brought
himself within the class who would be
affected by the alleged unconstitution-
al determinations, the fourth ground
of appeal will not be considered.
There is a point beyond which this
court does not consider arguments OF
this sort for the purpose of invalidat-
ing the tax laws of a State on con-
stitutional grounds. This limit has
!, been fixed in many cases. 1t is thai
unless the party setting up the uncon-
stitutionality of the state law belongs
to the class for whose sake the con-
stitutional protection is given, or the
class primarily protected, this court
does not listen to his objections, and
will not. go into imaginary cases, not
withstanding the seeming logic of tht
position that it must do so, because i
for any reason, or as against any clas:
, embraced, the law is unconstitutional
1t is void as to ALL" Hatch V. Rear
don. 204 U. S. 460.
There is no obvious reason-no dis
! tinction based upon legislative object
+, which requires that a law to regulat'
D sales of intoxicating liquors should b
/ held to be less immune than ta1
law from attack upon its constitution
: ality by persons not directly injured
E by the portions of the law alleged b.
4 them to be unconstitutional.
1 D Upon the defendants contention
i that the Board of License Commits
sioners is an unauthorized body beini
e a court and under the supervision O
4 no other tribunal, it is to be observes
n that courts established for admins
tration of public justice may have stat
I utory jurisdiction over the subject o
:. granting or refusing licenses for tn
sale Of intoxicating liquors or tn
Jurisdiction may be given to a desis
!. mated official or board which does no
Il thereby become a court. THE judi
cial power of the Territory" intende
by the Organic Act, can be vested on
ly ''in one supreme court, circui
= courts, and in such inferior courts a
the Legislature may from time to tim
establish" The inferior courts wit
" which judicial power of the Territor
: may be vested do not, in the sens
= in which the term is used in the Or
: ganic Act, include boards or commits
- sioners or supervisors who perforI
= certain functions of a judicial natur'
it is true, but are not courts either