The Mount Holly news. [volume] (Mount Holly, Burlington Co., N.J.) 1891-1942, 1908-04-21

TIE no-license advocates in Asbury
Park have won notable victory as a re-
suit of the decision rendered by the Su-
preme Court invalidating licenses granted
by the Board of Excise created In that
resort by authority of an act of the Legis-
lature of 1902. Justice Reed, who pre-
pared the opinion, holds that what is
known as the one mile limit law, which
prohibits the granting Of any new liquor
license within one mile of the grounds OF
any regularly established campmeeting
association. Is not special legislation, and
that therefore the Asbury Park Board OF
Excise had no power whatever to grant
licenses within that limit, and the licenses
so granted are declared to be null and
void AS q result of this decision, no
hotels at Asbury Park can legally sell
liquor during the coming season, even
though the case may, as it probably will
be, carried to the Court of Errors.
1t is mistake, however, to declare that
this decision is a victory for Ocean Grove
That resort had nothing to do with taking
the case into court. In fact, the one-mlle
limit law of 1896 was not passed for the
benefit of the campmeeting city, but for
the benefit of AsDury Park. In that year
James A. Bradley. the founder of Asbury
Park, represented Monmouth county in
the State Senate He had done every
thing In his power to prevent licenses
being granted in his resort. There had
been one mile limit law on the statute
books referring to Ocean Grove alone, and
that had just been declared unconstitu-
tional by the courts on the ground that it
was special legislation. Mr.. Bradley saw
that there was danger that licenses would
be granted in Asbury Park, and he intro
duced and secured the passage OF Dill
that made the one mile limit apply to all
campmeeting association grounds. The
Ocean Grove Campmeeting Association
had nothing whatever to do with that
legislation, for it was perfectly satisfied
with the restrictions that kept from Ocean
Grove the sale of liquor. 1t was the SEN
timent in Asbury Park in favor OF no
| license that brought about the enactment
of the new law. There is no ground,
therefore, for the claim so often made by
the liquor interests that the statute in
question is an attempt of religious or
ganization to interfere with the internal
affairs of city in which 1t is not located
In no way can the decision just rendered
be considered as a blow to the material
| interests of Asbury Park, though 1t Will
be disappointment to some Of the hotel
keepers there. Asbury Park gained its
wide popularity as no license resort. 1t
prospered wonderfully without the pres
ence of legally established bars in hotels
and saloons. 1t attracted thousands OF
visitors, for the very reason that it was
! free from the evils that invariably accom-
pany the sale of liquor. 1t is true that
the city was not absolutely dry" under
the no-license law, but the violations were
no larger in proportion than are the
breaches of other benefcent laws. The
people of Asbury Park, too, when they
have voted directly on the question OF
license or no license, have cast their ballots
against the legalizing of the sale of liquor
Under these circumstances the majority
of the residents of that resort-perhaps
exclusive of the recently annexed West
Park section-will be pleased with the
decision of the Supreme Court and will
hope that it will be sustained on appeal
NescGr-k Neaos