The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-09-18
LIQUOR LICENSE
POWER DEFINED
Continued from Page One.

to every one applying for It, though the
applca tion be made In conformity with
the statute and the applicant found TO
possess all the qualifications requisite lor
the issuance OF a license. And such is
the effect OF the holding IN the ease OF
Perry VS.. CITY Council q Utah, 1i3). In
that case the granting OF incense upon
an application made in conformity WIN
the requirements OF the statute and inc
ordinances OF the city was refused by the
council without assigning any reason
therefor. Upon an application for writ
Of mandamus to compel the council 10
issue a license TO the applicant the writ
was denied on the ground that the grant
ing or refusing OF license was wlthlh
the discretion of the council. The powers
then conferred upon the council, and the
ordinances OF the city relating 10 inc
issuing OF such licenses. were, as appears
in the statement OF the case, similar TO
those conferred upon the county commits
soners and the present statutes. here-
tofore referred to, with the exception thas !
the latter in express terms confer upon
the commissioners discretion 10 reluSe
the granting of a license
THE legislature undoubtedly vested the
county commissioners with the power OF
passing upon applications for permission
to sell intoxicating liquors In passing
upon such questions they may not only
consider whe ther the applicant is twenty
one years or more OF age, whether his ap-
plication is in due form and whether his
proposed bond Is good and sufficient, but
also whether the person applying tor the
with the conduct of such business,
whether the place proposed TO engage in
the business is suitable, whether the de-
mands of the public require such accom-
modations at such place. and they may
also take into consideration many other
questions involving the safety, peace. good
order. morals and public good OF the
neighborhood or community IN which II is
proposed TO engage in the business,
Power Discretionary.
That there are certain dangers and
evils attending the business of selling in
toSiCating liquors is generally conceded
and recognized. And, as we have seen
by our statute, a wide discretionary power
commissioners In passing upon applica-
tions for licenses TO sell intoxicating
liquors within their territorial jurlsdic-
ton When an application for license
is made to them. 1t unquestionably Is
their duty to consider IL, TO make proper
inquiry concerning It, and, upon the re-
sponsbility of their official oath, to reach
q determination. But the duty OF the
commissioners in the premises to grant
licenses is not imperative and mandatory
II is discre tionary."
Here the court cites several cases In
support OF this and proceeds.
These cases. to a large extent. pro-
ceed upon the theory that the retail traf-
flc OF Intoxicating liquors is one which
confessediy requires to be kept in pru-
dent hands, and that where the legisla-
ture conferred the power upon authorities
TO regulate, restrict and control the traf-
fic. and the power. In passing upon ap
their discretion underlined and unpre-
scrlbed by the legislature. the RESPONSE
bility for the proper conduct OF such
business rests with such authorities: and
IL they do not act with a view to the pub
lie interests, the legislature may take
away their power and discretion, or the
people may elect more satisfactory off,
GERS upon whom such power and discre-
tion has been conferred. and In the Ian
guage OF the federal court in the case of
in re- Hoover. 30 Fed. 81. that the state
may authorize the sale OF spirituous
liquors on such terms. by such persons
and at such places. as it thinks proper.
and II II may do this directly, may il
not delegate to others the exercise OF the
power 1t has simply delegated a por-
ton OF its sovereignty to the county
commissioners. The commissioners, in
the, exercise OF that sovereignty. refuse
a license TO the petitioner. The discre-
ton must rest somewhere. The state
might have exercised it. II intrusts its
discretion to the board OF county commits
sioners. and, as have said. by the terms
OF the grant; this discretion is final and
not renewable. This power is insepa-
rable from the sovereignty OF the state
Can Not Be Arbitrary.
1--WE are not unmndful of the rulings
made that even though a licensing board
may be vested with a discretion in the
matter OF granting licenses. IL cannot
to issue a license. and that where IL is
made to appear that an applicant is en-
titled to license upon compliance with
the statutory requirements. and the ac-
ton OF the board Is OF such a character.
issuance OF the license may be compelled
by mandanus
We may again say. as was said by the
court in Varnes VS.. Commissioners supra
the Judgment OF the court is based en-
tirely upon the theory that after finding
that the applicant Is a ht person and
he n tah
other recited facts. the commissioners
have no discretion left In the matter.
This Is an error; for the statute ex-
pressly provides that even though these
facts are found the commissioners may
grant license, and not that they must
do So Our statute merely authorized
the county commissioners to grant H.
censes TO sell Intoxicating liquors II
does not In express terms require or com
mand them to do 50. The use OF the word
authorized In such a statute is permis-
sve, not mandatory,
Doesn't Apply Elsewhere.