The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1911-03-02
THE OPTICAL" LIQUOR BILL.

and has at least the merit oil not pelnB
unreasonably long. The Senate liquor
bill requires some twenty Thousand
words to express itself. This new or
''bunch -, liquor bill is less than one
tenth of that length; but there It's merit
ceases, for il is fully as bad per word
as any of the bills so far introduced, II
not worse.
It's most obnoxious feature is the
bringing in OF the district court as an
administrative power in the granting
OF liquor licenses, The city recorder
is required to forward to the district
court the application for liquor license
with bond attached, and thcreupon the
court will make an "order' that the
license shall issue. But, after all, the
process of the court does not seem to
be an order. as it is at first desig'
mated, nor is the city council obliged
to obey it. for the council ''may or
His authorized TO issue the license
upon the order of the court The IAN
cuagc of the bill in its first mention
clearly implies that the council may
obey the court order or not, rs it sees
fit. But, if the order of the court as
to the issue of licenses approved by
the court is in fact an order, there are
no means provided in the bill whereby
that order can be enforced. If 1T Is
not an order, then what is the use OF
having il 90 through the court at alif
The multiplying of work and expense
is evident from the requirement that
the application and bond shall he re
tanned by the court and copy sent by
the clerk of the court to the city re-
eorder In the section whereby this
matter is later treated, it appears 10
be mandatory upon the council to issue
the license, but in the first paragraph
of section l243 the wording is, that
the council is ''hereby authorized to
grant licenses - In one case the coun-
ell has discretion. even after the order
Of the court issues whether it Will grant
the license or not; in the third para
graph it is provided that the city coun-
ell ''shall cause the license to issue. -
Here is a clear conflict of two parts of
the law, one against the other.
Bnt the chief objection is to the
court having anything TO do with ths
matter at all; for il is entirely out of
the accepted business of a court to en-
ter upon the exercise Of administrative
functions. The Judges can determine
the law. 1t is not within the Judicial
function TO engage IN administrative
or executive duties, and it is well al
ways to keep separate the functions OF
the different departments of our evil
administration. The courts might Just
as we'll be called upon to enact laws as
to proceed with the administration OF
them in functions that are not judicial
They might just as we'll be entrusted
with all executive powers as with ordi
nary administrative and executive pow
ers. The BILL therefore, is objection
able by reason of It's mlngEng of differ
ent governmental functions. The sep
aration Of the powers OF civil govern
ment into legislative, executive. and ju
dicial should never be done away with
nor should one department of the gov
ernment infringe upon the rights ant
proper functions of either of the 9th
ers. And, as a practical proposition
the conrts have no time to take on thi
administrative function. The court cal
endar is clogged all the time will
o-1, i.1 bn I,fr
have all their time taken without hay
ing this new burden loaded upon them
In the election provisions carried il
this bill the same being costly, unneces
sary, and irksome, two opposite rule
are applied In the case of cities th
vote, in order to have prohibition
there must be a majority Of all tn
votes cast al the last general election
but in the country districts the vote
in order 20 have saloons, must be
majority of the total vote cast at tn
last general election. That Is, the Law
distinctly favors the saloon in the citic
and prohibition in the country districts
This contrary rule as to the two claSse
Of voting units ON this question ca
hardly be sustained In the courts.
Another objection to the bill is, tha
cities are forbidden TO reduce the mum
Der of saloons by requiring a heavy Ii
censc fee. The mos, that can be exact
, ed from saloons is $500 a year Tha
is the license fee now in this city, an
1 a good many arc IN favor of increasin
this license charge in order to effect
. reduction of the number of saloon.
Upwards of i35 saloons in this cit
pay the $500 year license; but tber
: is strong public sentiment here i
, favor Of increasing this license charg
o in order TO effect reduction Of th
+ number Of saloons TO a basis Of one 81
: loon TO every thousand of the populi
ton. That would give us, say, 93 s;
looms in this city But it is desrabl
: that the revenue from saloon license
> shuU pn+ hp rgbucod Tho 1outc 90 ~