The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1909-03-26
THE LIQUOR DEALERS GIVE
THEIR SIDE OF QUESTION
Dispute the Published Analysis of Their Bill
and Explain the Meaning Another Way
Final Gun Before House Action.


payment of the extra $4,000 The
same paragraph permits hotels to sell
hquor after the usual closing hours aud
on Sundays and election hours with or
without meals by the payment of the
extra S250.00.' In the first place the
amendment does not permit the sale of
intoxicating liquors during election
hours. In the second place it does not
permit the sale of intoxicating liquors
without meals in restaurants on Sun
days. And in the third place, the
amendment aceomplishes nothing new
for the reason that the present liquor
law IS silent as to whether or not in
toxicating liquors can only be sold in
hotels and restaurants with meals. In
fact proper Interpretation of the law
results in the conclusion that the sale
In either of those establishments is per
n1itted without meals And further. the
Poard of License Commissioners of the
County of Oahu have interpreted the
Act to mean that intoxicating liquors
can be sold in either restaurants or ho-
tells at tables without meals. If any
thing, the amendment is an improve
ment on the existing law, as it excludes
absolutely the. right of restaurants to
sell intoxicating liquors without meals
on Sundays, and prohibits any sales on
election days.
These remarks are also applicable TO
the reference made to the amendment
of Section IL.
The statement, therefore, as contain
ed in paragraph of the summary that
Privilege granted to restaurants to
T. Il
hours and during election hours by the
payment of the extra $3.50 as well as
the statement contained in paragraph
4, that Privilege granted to hotels to
sell liquors without meals after closing
hours and on Sundays and during cleo
ton hours by the payment of the extra
$3.50 are both Incorrect. And the ad-
dition to Section II is decidedly not
plainly added to permit restaurants
to sell liquor with or without meals. -
The statement is further made in the
summary of Objectionable features of
the amendment that s1the licensee may
transfer his business from one precinct
to another with the consent of the
board. - There certainly can be no
objection to the transfer from one pre-
einct to another if the consent of the
board is secured. And furthermore, the
amendment contains the provision that
This section shall not be construed to
infringe upon the rights of the majority
of the property holders as in Section II
of this Act intended to be saved to
them. Section IL of the Act provides
that property holders situated within a
distance of one thousand feet IN a
straight line from the nearest point of
the premises for which the license is
asked must consent to the application
for a license. Therefore, upon an APP
plication to transfer, the adjoining
property holders may protest against
such transfer. and the result is that
the local option feature is preserved.
Obviously the board will withhold its
consent until the adjoining property
holders have had an opportunity TO
present any protest which they might
desire.
The right of appeal as provided by
Section 35a is simply calculated to pro-
teet the licensee from any arbitrary
action of the board in suspending or
revoking his license or refusing a re-
newal thereof And when one consid
ers the reasons for desiring such right
of appeal one must come to the conclu-
sion that such desire is perfectly rea-
sonable. Where the board is correct
in its refusal of the renewal of IL
eense it should be the last one to fear
any review of its decision; and where
its decision is correct and Just the
Judge on appeal will no doubt sustain
the board in its findings. But where 1t
acts arbitrarily and its decision is I'M
lust WHY should not the hcensee have
the right to protect his business which
he has established, as well as preserve
the value of his stock and merchandise
Where the application for the renewal
of A license is refused the licensee is
deprived of the further right to dispose
of his stock and merchandise within
the Territory. It's value as salable
asset within the Territory is gone, and
his only alternative is to sell the same
elsewhere. and under such conditions
it can be easily appreciated that he is
in a very preearious position.
Furthermore. were he obliged to
secure loans in the ordinary business
way. those dealing in money would re-
fuse to accept his stock as security fol
The reason that they would be placed
in a similar position as the iieensee
were his license revoked and they fore
ed to sell the stock and merchandise
outside of the Territory. In other
words. no matter how large the stock
it represents no tangible asset for the
simple reason that the board may arbl
trarilv at the end of the license year
refuse TO renew the license.
Again. in respect to forfeiture, revo
cation or suspension of the license. Tn
der the provisions of Section 81 not
alone are violations of conditions OF
the license. and conviction at law fol
the violation of any of the provisions
of law relative to licenses made grounds
for revocation or suspension. but thf
board NAV revoke or suspend Incense
s.For any other cause deemed sufiiclen'
hv the board. - The board being tht
sole Judge as to the sufieieney of it
reasons for revocation or suspension
are absolutely omnipotent in respect
Ia the licensee S right to continue busi
ness. And our association IN order II
meet this condition desires the rlgh1
10 appeal to the circuit JUDGE so thai
any arbitrary or unreasonable or I'm
inst action of the board can be re
viewed.
1t is rejoined that the PROPOSED
-. 1,,a,+s .y,ar,uit a continuation o.