The Morris County chronicle., 1908-02-04
THE RIGHT TO SELL LIQUOR.

From some quarters comes dissent
to the declaration made by Governor
Fort in his inaugural message, that
there is no Inherent right to sell
Liquor" +" and claim is made that there
is the same right to sell intoxicants
that there is to dispose of groceries,
shoes or clothing. The words of the
Governor we're 1.-THE sale of intoxi-
cants has always been one of the mat
ters within the police power of the
State and subject to legislative con-
troll, and if they will, to legislative
prohibition. There is no inherent
right to sell liquor. 1t has always
been a matter of license only at the
will of the State"
One of the first laws passed in the
colony of New Jersey, after the sur
render Of the rights of government by
the Board of Propretors in 1702, was
to regulate the sale of Intoxicating
liquors, and there has not been day
since 1703 when such laws we're not in
force in the colony and State. OF this
fact the Governor was doubtless aware,
but he was even more familiar with
the precedents and decisions, for he sat
with Justices Reed and Trenchard
at the argument before the Supreme
Court over the constitutionality of the
Bishops law, and wrote the opinion
in that case, which is reported in
Meehan v. Excise Commissioners Of
Jersey City, and reported in IA Vroom.
The decision has not yet been passed
upon by the Court of Errors and APP
peals, but its language is so positive
and the citations so numerous that
little room is left for doubt that it
will be upheld. The opinion says
The right to regulate the sale of in
toxicating liquors by the Legislature,
or by municipal or other authority un-
der legislative power given, is within
the police power of the State, and is
practically limitless. 1t may extend
to the prohibition Of the sale alto
gether. A license is not contract.
1t is mere privilege.
To the claim that the Bishops law
is in violation of that provision of the
federal constitution which prohibits
any State from making or enforcing
any law which shall abridge the priv
ileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States, or depriving any per-
son Of life, liberty or property without
due process Of law, or denying any per-
son the equal protection of the laws,
it is held that this clause of the fed
eral constitution relates to those
rights of citizens which may be called
fundamental Those which belong Of
right to all citizens of free govern
ment, and which have at all times
been enjoyed by the citizens of the
several States"
The decision of Justice Field, in
Crowley against ChrisUiansen, is quot
ed: "There is no inherent right in a
citizen to sell intoxicating liquors by
retail. Its not, a privilege of citi-
zen of the State or the United States.
Itmay be entirely prohibited by State
legislation or limited in it's evils. "
The Meehan opinion holds that the
police power is Inherent In the several
States, and undeE-si5 the States have
always regulated and, if they desired,
prohibited the retail liquor traffic.
ssRetailing Intoxicating liquors was
never a priyilegeSwhich the citizens
could demand as a right. ** There
is no contract relation between the
State and the licensed liquor dealer.
He must conform his business to the
State and municipal regulations, law
fully enacted. ."--Trenton Times.