The Brinkley argus., 1907-06-21
|sENsATI0NAL DECISIONS
Points to the Probable and Resl Settlement Cf the Licensed Saloon Prob
 lem.

l the WHlSRsy lUSHHtsS sS.
 those who have thought us cranky on
 the sutject ard fer the benefit of these
 nd rha, :he general rutlic also may
 srcw of ,be recent happenings in this ne the following article is tsker from
 the last issue of the Masonic Towel commenting on the positive and pro- nourced stand stand tf that great fra .ernal order on the whtskey business
 the Trcwel says:
 That it is an immoral business
 net only all good peop'e have so con ;luded. but many Of the courts of the country. But the latest and ex;rem- est deliverance cn the suSject Is from an Indiana court which declares the srsnt ofIicense for such business is illegal Here it is:'
 l. Lebanon. Ind. May 4.--For the third time in less than ninety days saiccn license has been unequivcca- tEely declared unconstitutional by an lndisra juist. This third decisionh as just teen rendered in the Boone County Coult by Acting Judge Frank E. Hutchinson.
 The details of the case are as fol- ows:
 Mir. Hutchinson is 2 prominent law yer cf Lebanon. having served as prosecuting attorney. He is known IS clear thinker, and his opinion on legal matters has always been highly regarded.
 The case under consideration is one which has had stormy experience in he courts. In 1905 blanket remon- strsnce covering Adams township was filed with the Hamilton County Com- missioners. Soon afterward saloon seeler at Sheridan named Lanham applied for a license and was refused oy the commissioners. who held that the monstrance settled the question against him. He was not even al owed to test the validity of the re- nonstrsnce. Judge Ira w. Christ an. of the Hamilton Circuit Court when an appeal was taken. held with the commissioners. Lanhain then appealed to the State Appellate Court, and here the ruling cf the low 1T court was reversed, the appellate judges holding that remonstrance is
 lot effective until it has been te-ted. The case being sent back 10 Ham, ilton County for hearing. and Judge -hrlstisn having in the meantime de- livered his decision declaring the sa 7
 loon a nuisance per SC. and the license law unconstitutional. Lanham's at-
 tcrney tcck change of venue. Judge
 Christian promptly sent the case too Judge Artman. Heer Doan g. Orbi son Prohibition attorneys who repre-
 sent the Indianapolis Business Men $ Committee and who won the victories
 before Artman and Christisn) came into the case as attorneys. and made
 a motion 10 dismiss Lanham's arpli- caticn for license on the ground that the law YVES constitutional. Having once decided that question, Judge Artman felt delicacy in ruling upon it again. and so appointed Frank E.
 Hutchinson ss special judge to hear the case.
 Upon the conclusion of the argu- ments. Acting Judge Hutchinson gave his decision at once. sustaining the
 moticn 10 dismiss the case. Going
 directly to the question at issue. Judge Hui tchir sen noted with ccmmendaticn tke preceding ones rendered by Jud- gss Artman and Christian declaring
 saloon license illegal and then declar- ed:
 "The decisions of cur higher courts
 are almost without number that de- | plore the evil tendency of the retail
 liquor saloon. These decisions also
 say that the retail liquor saloons are the me st fruitful source of all kinds oi
 all kinds Of sin, vice and crime; that
 they are the fruitful cause ct m sery
 want. psuperIsm. shame and disgrace and that from four fifths to nine e-tenthS of all tie crimes committed can be traced and are chargeabIe 10 the re- tail saloons. might cite number of authorities where the above lang uage or language similar can be found