The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1908-12-26

/ Acts OF 1907. Be that as III NAV for
/ purposes of restraint. the power OF
the council of Pensacolais not limited
Ito fifty per cent of the license fixed
by the legislature. And Istnink the
right of the council to mass the oldi-
nance in question here IS found in It's
| power to regulate and restrain tipping
! places and bar rooms where beer.
vine or sPirituous liquor = sold at
retail.
! lndere this power To- regulate and
/. restrain the sale OF beer, wiae or spir-
.it1ous liquor, the city council of Pen
sacalas IS not authorized to entirely
prohibit the sale of such iicuor. Mef-
! Eaugh vs.. City of Orlando. i Fla. 43s
q South. Rer. 81; Eek Parte Theisen
80 Fla, 529, South. Rep. 301: Sweet
v City of Wabash, Ar Ind :.
while the power TO regulate does
not authorize prohibition in a general
sense, for the very essence of regu-
lauon Is the existence of something
10 be regulated yet the weight of au-
thority is to the effect that this now
er confers the authority to confine tho
business referred TO to certain hours of
l'the day, 10 certain localities or build
lngs in city. and TO the manner of
ITS prosecution within these hours.
localities and buildings TX Parte
Byrd, 81 Ala. IL, South. Rep. 3s7.
See also Horr & Bemis on Hunicipal
Police Ordinance, 81
The mere fact that prov sion is
made by state regulation for securing
the license TO sell liquor loes not eS-
Guide municipal regulation Or restrain
OF such business within corporate linn
It's. Fix Darte Theisen. supra.
The power to regulate or restrain
short of ahSOlrfa ,,robihi@foo ~
an arbitrary power. and mast be ex-
ereised in reasonable manner
Every act of municipality. through
lis ordinances slould be within she
powers expressly conferred. shonlc
BE based upon a proper classification
OF subjects, should be reasonable an9
applicable alike to all under practical
~ similar conditions or circumstances
and should not violate any Srovisio,
OF pflnciple OF law. Harlee
Brown. decided at this term.
While municipal ordinances. u b
valid, must not be unreasonable. ia
presumption is in favor. of rhes
validity. u is therefore, incunber
On those seeking to have hem sc
aside as unreasonable 70 point out &
snow wherein sue txunreasonablena
consists. People rex rel Morrison
lT1g1er.,1SS III 40l. IS y. e. Rep. SIP
In Hardee y.TBrown. supra, we said
when the authority to act appears
me correctness of the action taken
hereunder may be presumed mill
the contrary is shown
1t is eontended that thi. nrdinan.a
Is Illegal, unreasonable unequal AMI
partial because it arbitrarily desis-
mates a territory five hundred by sev-
en- hundred yards in size and makes
tpe basis of the license $1,000 and OK
acts $1,000 additional whers the bust.
ness IS carried ON outside OF this i'm
iten territory; while the cost of reg
utatlon and police supervision is no !
greater in one district than in the /
ether and each district embraces many {
Iesldences as well as business houses.
The fact taat the cost of regulation
and police supervision is M greater
IN one district than In the other does /
not overcome the presumption in ia
Yar or the validity of this ordinance.
The expense of police SUPERVISION
VIII not control the fixing of the
of the license By such a
theory tle power TO regulafe and re-
strain wolIlf be shorn of all its eff
hciency Upon such q theory the i'm
position OF a license of $1,000 upon
the business here sought 10 be resu-
lated and restrained might be hell
cense was made TO apply TO all parts
Of tae city alike. The very purpose
Of n nigh license, in excess of the
amount pecesSary for the police SUI
pefxision. is to reduce the namber of
saloons and 10 improve the character
of them, and by thus reducing the
number of them to lessen the evils
That follow t1erefrom. If the license
money could not exceed the mere ex-
pense OF police supervision. Its object II
would fail entirely Iii yrepney = i
LEM .16 Wis $50. the court said: eve
nave no doubt. therefore. thai the leg
stature may. in regulating any matter
mat Is a proper subject OF the police
power. impose such sums for licenses u
as Will operate as partial restriction
upon the business, or upon The keep
ng of the particular kinds of prop
7rty regulated.
In speaking of tde power of the state I
n. the exercise OF its police power TO
TX the fee for a license for the sale
,f Intoxicating liquor. Black on IN {
Liquors, section ISL. says: ;
Revenue is not the chief object of
icensa laws: it is not even their pri-
mary purpose. The principal aim of {
such statutes is TO restrict he num-
,er OF persons engaging in the liquor
raffic. to regulate the condiiut of their I
business. and, by such restriction and :
'egnlatiou. to promote the welfare and {
he moral health of society They are I
therefore, enacted in the exercise of I
he poiice power" The same anthor
'ays: "A license fee IS exacted pri- {
narily as means of restricting or {
the trade. and IL continues {
o. be such although incidentally it |
nay procure an addition 10 lie public Y
evenue. Black on Intoxicating LII :
iuors. section III
As dram drinking is considered an 3
vii 10 the person, and pef.uicious 10 !
he welfare of society, there may be t
harged a sum both fog the purpose /
f restricting the persons selling. and I
the municipality for adj .
itional police expenses that may di- S
ectly or Indirectly result from the {
raffic. The amount charged is not. a /
ak, but a burden imposed as the i
rice. of privilege. wdich those con- 1
rolling the municipality are enpow- a
red 10 restrain. Dennehy = City of G