The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-09-21

| closely reasoned decision Dy Cnle
- Justice Hartwell sustained the valid
ity of the liquor license law agains
r lacks made on it on behalf of the de
PENDANT in the case of the Territor.
of Hawaii VS.. Jacintho Miguel. Thi
:. was the first case brought to test tn
b, law and the points made were yer!
forcibly presented by T. NJ. Harrison
for the defendant. The Territory wa.
D 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 Hartwen, which
is given herewith in full:
| OPINION OF THE COURT BY
HARTWELL, C. ].
The defendant was charged July s,
1907, before the district magistrate of
| Honolulu with selling in Honolulu
July 6, 1907, certain intoxicating liq-
| 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 a 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
hnf he
the board to exchange his license for
a license under Act 119 and was re-
fused, each application being in the
form required by Act 119. The de-
PENDANT was found guilty and sentence
ed to a fine of 800 and costs 81, from
which judgment he appealed to this
court on points of law, in substance, |
as follows: % In providing for ap- |
pointment of a Board of License Com !
with authority, in their |
discretion, to refuse or grant applica-
lions 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-
Lhorlty TO create any but inferior
courts CSec. 81, Org. AcD the board
S unauthorized by law; (2) the act
ieprives the defendant of his property
without due process of law, contrary
% the 14th amendment, he being pre-
tented by its operation from dispos-
ng, after the expiration of his license,
# the Stock of liquors acquired by him
While holding a license under the Act |
If 1905; CD the act authorizes the
8oard of License Commissioners to re-
use to grant any license and there :
ore is prohibi, Dry law, and yet its
tile, An Act to Regulate the Sale
# Spirituous Liquors, Repeating Act
Z of the Session Laws of 1906" does |
lot suggest the subject and therefore '
he law is invalid by Sec. 45 of the i
organic Act requiring that leach law t
hall embrace but one subject which
hall be expressed in it's titIe;" "a the i
ct, in requiring higher license fees l
or the sale of liquors manufactured &
ut of the Territory than for those I
in the Territory by the
censee, violates Sec. of Act of the Il
giving to citizens of each 4
tate AL privileges and immunities of h
lt1zenS in the several States,'' and en- j
reaches upon the exclusive power of c
congress to regulate commerce. u
As the defendant, not being a for I
Ign manufacturer, has not brought S
imsef within the class who would be h
nected by the alleged unconstitution-
determinations, the fourth ground q
appeal will not be considered. =
There is point beyond which this !
ourt does not consider arguments of +
his sort for the purpose of invalidat- :
lg the tax laws of a State on con- .
-itutional grounds. This limit has =
cen fixed in many cases. 1t is that ),
Mess the party setting up the uncon- !,
nationality of the state law belongs
} the class for whose sake the con-
.itutional protection is given, or the .
ass primarily protected, this court :
pes not listen to his objections, and :
i'll not go into imaginary cases, not
the seeming logic of the
)sitlon that it must do so, because if "
n any reason, or as against any class
the law is unconstitutional y
is void as to ALL" Hatch v. Rear 2
IN, 204 u. S. $780, IT
There is no obvious reason-no dis
notion based upon legislative objects l.
hich requires that a law to regulate
les of intoxicating liquors should be e
I'D to be less immune than a tax C
w from attack upon its constitution III
ity by persons not directly injured pl
: the portions of the law alleged by II
EN- to be unconstitutional. e
~ Upon the defendants contention sc
at the Board of License Commits
oners is an unauthorized body being vi
court and under the supervision of az
other tribunal, it is to be observed SO
at courts established for admins Ill
alton of public justice may have stat OF
Dry jurisdiction over the subject of in
anting or refusing licenses for the tn
lie of Intoxicating liquors or the tn
risdiction may be given to a desig- 26
ted official or board which does not to
ereby become a court. 1.-The judi tn
Il power of the Territory" intended til
the Organic Act, can be vested on tie
in one supreme court, circuit ba
urts, and in such inferior courts as M
2 Legislature may from time to time WI
ablish." The inferior courts with be
Iich judicial power of the Territory tn
~ be vested do not, in the sense ST
which the term is used In the Or au
MIC Act, include boards or commits ice
ners or supervisors who perform | or