The Wisconsin tobacco reporter. (Edgerton, Wis.) 1877-1950, 1910-12-09
PART OF ORDINANCE is VOID.
Judge Grimm Holds Against the City
i'm the Stricken Case.

l HI tltC OtIlCkCI OdSes
In the case of the City of Edgerton
VS.. William and August Stricken for
violation of saloon ordinance passed last
spring, which was appealed to the cir
cult court, Judge Grimm, in decision
handed down Monday, holds the ordi-
nance void. After denying all motions
made on technical grounds, he says in
| part:
! The consideration of the main ques-
ton in this case, to-wit, is the Ordi-
nance prohibiting the sale of liquor to
a woman valid exercise, by the COM
mon council of the city, of its delegated
powers to regulate the liquor traffic
within the city. | am decidedly of the
| opinion that it is not. 1t is purely class
| legislation, unjustifable upon the theory
| OF necessity as police regulation, or
| otherwise. Where the policy of state
| recognizes the selling of liquor as le-
gltlmate business when conducted under
| certain safeguards essential to it's prop
| er regulation and control so as to min
imize it's attendant evils, and where the
state makes no distinction based solely
upon sex in reference to the persons
who may purchase liquor, the common
| council of a city cannot do so. It's or
dinances regulating the traffic must be
reasonable and justified by the exigen-
cieS of the situation The reason or
justification for class distinction based
on sex alone fails entirely when the
evil of the intermingling of the sexes
under recognized dangerous conditions
does not form the basis.
In the case at bar, farmers wife,
while doing her trading in the city, ap-
preached one of the defendants while
he was unhitching his horse near his
stable, and asked him if he had any
beer in bottles, at the same time in
forming him that the doctor had ad-
vised her to daily drink some beer for
her health. The defendant answered
that he had plenty. Thereupon she re-
quested that when her team drove up
to his place on Main street he should
put case of beer in the wagon for
her; and this he did. If the ordinance
is so worded as to forbid such sale it is
clearly a discrimination based on sex
alone and without justification. AS
we'll might the council forbid the sale
OF liquor to men as class while au-
thorizing it's sale to women. Indeed,
if the purpose is to minimize the evils
of the traffic by reasonable regulation,
that purpose would probably be accom-
plished to more marked extent if sale
of liquor were permitted to be made to
women only, for the reason that while
the effect of the liquor is the same on
both sexes, much less would undoubt-
edly be consumed. But it would be
unlawful to thus discriminate against
men solely because of their sex, and it
is equally unlawful to discriminate
against women solely because of their
sex. The laws of this state very gen.
orally put women on par with men;
but the so-called 'tlords of creation"
still seem to hold themselves more cap
able of safely playing with fire-well
perhaps they are. A license to sell
liquor may be refused altogether; but
when one is granted it cannot be upon
conditions requiring the employment of
unjustifable = because unreasonable
discrimination on part of the licensee.