The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-09-19
THE LIQUOR DECISION.

|
tuie of 1909 to pass local option
liquor law, The Tribune insisted that no
such legislation was necessary; that the
statutes of Utah already were local OPP
tion statutes; that the county commits
sioners or city councils were not obliged
to grant liquor licenses TO anybody, but
where the communities did not want
liquor selling TO 90 among them, the
commissioners were at perfect liberty to
refuse to grant a liquor license to any
applicant. 1t seemed to us to be a
very plain case from the reading of the
statutes
But 1T seems that all did not con-
cur in this view, and an applicant for
a license In Morgan county thought
that he could compel the county com
mlssioners to grant him license
whether they wanted to do so or not.
Accordingly he applied for an order
Of the court directing the commission
ers "not to refuse to issue license to
the complainant upon the ground that
they were opposed to the granting of
any liquor licenses in snid county
The District Court held for the
applicant and ordered the license.
The commissioners appealed to the Su-
preme Court of this State from this
Judgment in the district court,
1t is clear that the broad question
CT the discretion of the county com
missioners was fully and directly raised
in this case.
The Supreme Court has just rendered
ITS decision on the appeal after hav-
ing the matter under advisemcnt for
some months. That decision is COM
some months. That decision supports
the commissioners and is also com
plete affirmation of The Tribune 8 po-
sition on this question. 1t directly
holds that the commissioners have
that the courts can do is to require that
this discretion be soundly exercised.
The commissioners directly pleaded that
they did not desire to issue any liquor
licenses IN Morgan county. The effect
of the decision of the Supreme Court
is that they 90 not need to issue any
such license as long as they are or the
opinion that it should not be issued.
1t follows naturally that city coun~
ellis, being invested In their municipali-
cretion that the county commissioners
have within their jurisdictions, are sub
iect to the same rule. They may deny
any applicant license to sell liquor,
either for specific or general reasons.
As matter of fact, councils generally
and properly refuse licenses to sell
liquor in the residence districts. This
discretion is not challenged and it fol
lows that councils may refuse licenses
in any localities where reason is shown
for not granting them. 1t also follows,
from well-established practice, that
councils are not required to grant any
applicant license to sell liquor. All
that the law requires, as the Supreme
Court has just interpreted the law, is
that the councils, commissioners, or
town boards, as the case may be, shall
deal fairly and on sound principles in
the action that each or either may
take .-.----.-.
We assume that there can be no ques~
ton whatever about the soundness of
this decision. A body in which the
State rests the discretion to do a GER
tain act is not bound to do that act
if in its discretion it finds the act
ought not to be done. There is moth
ing at all mandatory In the law. 1t is all
n question of discretion, of judgment, to
be exercised by the licensing power in
an impartial manner, subject to sound
and general rules. A board
of county commissioners cannot, for in
stance, license one person to sell liquor
through mere favoritism, and deny
license to some one else who presents
as clear an application, merely because
the commissioners do not like the Sec
ond applicant personally, or for some
other frivolous cause. 1t is a question
Of fairness, equity, and conformity to
law and just regulations suitable to the
moral sense and desire of the commu~
nifty represented
The commissioners of Morgan county
are completely upheld in their position
that in the exercise OF their discre.
tion they do not need to grant a liquor
license to anybody TO sell liquor in Nor
gan county. That is prohibition in that
county. If the county commissioners
of Salt Lake county saw fit to decline
to issue license to sell liquor in
that part of Salt Lake county which |
is under their jurisdiction for this pur.
pose. they also could refuse. The city
council of this city could in like man
ner refuse, 1t is matter of discre-
ton and not of obligation; aud this
gives US in effect and to every practi.
cal purpose desired. a local option law
in Utah. precisely as The Tribune
claimed during the session of the legis
lature of 1g00 that u-a lr..l,. h.,.a