The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1909-10-05
TALKS ON
PERMIT SUBJECT
JUDGE POLLOCK TAKES oCcAs-
ION TO MAKE POSITION ON THE
SUBJECT CLEAR WHEN FIRST
APPLICATION WAS BROUGHT
BEFORE HIM THIS MORNING.

Incidental to the hearing of the first
application for druggists permit, in
the district court this morning, Judge
Chas. A. Pollock took occasion to make
his position on the subject quite clear.
Tho court said In part:
| Gentlemen, this is the first applica-
ton, and being liable to meet with ap-
Iplications constantly, / want to make
the following statement, which / think
will in a certain sense give you the
idea Of the judge upon this question.
/ am not speaking now with reference
to this particular case at all, / am
speaking generally.
Upon the question OF granting
druggists permits. may say generally
that while the district court as such
cannot have cast upon it the duty OF
granting or Withholding permits, yet
| 1t is perfectly proper under our con-
stitution to cast that burden upon the
person holding the office. This was dis
tinctly held by Judge Brewer in the
Intoxicating liquor cases (25 Kansas,
1917, with reference to the county
judges, and, in the absence of any
statement In our constitution speaking
to the contrary, / see no reason why
the same rule would not apply to dis
trict judges in this state as 1t did to
the county judges.
| 10 up TO Judge.
Passing then the question of the
power. the district judges will be con-
fronted with the question OF exped-
iency in all cases, because, under the
law, it is left wholly to the discretion
of the district Judge, no appeal being
allowed. The present statute, Sec.
1855, says that The applicant shall be
required to prove the trlthfulness OF
each and every statement contained in
such petition. IL satisfied that the
statements in such petition are true,
the district judge may In his discretion
grant a permit to the applicant to sell
Intoxicating liquors for medicinal, me-
chanical, scientific and wine for sacra-
mental purposes only The
proofs offered to show the applicant
entitled to a permit must be clear,
specific. satisfactory and Of such a
character as to leave in the mind OF
the Judge no hesitation or substantial
doubt as to their truth. and the burden
of producing such proof shall always
be upon the applicant
From the foregoing 1t will be seen
that the law exacts the greatest care
upon the part Of district judges In
granting permits. 1t liz well known in
this state that the permit law has
been in the past, sadly abused. Indeed
there were a large number Of persons
lin the legislature who felt that time
had arrived when no permits should
be granted at ALL Others thought thai
liquor should be sold by the prescrip-
ton plan, and still others believed thai
the permit system as adopted, shorT
OF its evil possibilities. would be the
best The law was therefore adopted
in it's present form. 1t Is signifcan
that the power OF granting permits
was taken out of the hands of thu
county judges end placed with the dis
trict judges, and the foregoing rules
were laid down to contFc' the distric
judges in their action.
il Why the Application
Every application must stand up
on it's own facts. / believe 1t to bt
! proper for the Judge to inquire, WIN
the application? Especially in view D
] the fact that no names are required u
! the petition save that OF the applicant
himself This fact, however. only at
} fects the jurisdictional features. Il
J other words. under the former law, |
county Judge could not hear q peti
! ton unless 1T had the requisite numbe
) OF signers besides the applicant, bu
no such requirement Ii made unde
the present law. This. however, doe
: not prevent the Judge from making
j due inquiry into the necessities o
) each case. / believe 1t proper anonI
i other things to inquire, why the ap
: plication2 Is there any pressing de
Inland from fTo community especiall,