The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1911-06-16
taRRilaCHING DECISIONS

Two DECISIONS important in their relation to
the liquor traffic, have been recently handed
down by Judge T. J. Barham, of the Newport
News Corporation Court and Circui, Judge Nc
Lemore. of Suffolk
Judge Barham's decision deals with the pro-
perty rights involved In the license to conduct
the sale of liquors. Any ordinary mercantile
license Is a clear asset and can be assigned az
viii by it's owner. But Judge Barham rules
that liquor license Is a personal privilege and
is not legally susceptible of assignment ar
mortgage, In this conclusion he practically
follows a decision of the Supreme Court of the
United States. in which 1t is held that the right
to engage in the sale of liquor IL not an oriei.
nal or inalienable one. bnt is a personal priyi-
lege granted under certain conditions and re,
strictions by the Will of the people,
The Importance of the decision is understood
when 1t Is known that common custom among
brewers and wholesale liquor dealers has been
to advance money to saloon keepers and accept
a mortgage the license as security Indeed
large number of saloons operating today are
maintained and financed by the breweries This
decision Of the Newport News court wipes out
the value of the security and will probably
cause the moneyed men of the business to be-
come exceeding cautious about the future
financing OF the saloon. 1t is to be hoped that
Judge. barham's decision win reduce the num-
Der Of brewers agents. and hence the number
OF irresponsible parties doing business
The other decision relates directly to the
registration laws, and hence is Of great impor-
lance in local option elections The point at
issue is whether the law demands that parties
desiring to register as voters shall make per-
sonal written application therefor or not II
will he recalled that iii the recent local option
election In Lynchburg the dry people contested
the election upon the ground that large mum.
bers of votes were illegally cast, inasmuch as
the registrars had permitted names to be added
to the registration books of parties who had
not fulfilled the requirements It our memory
is correct there many whose names ap-
peared as voters who had failed to make this
written application for registration, but who
were added TO the books upon typewrtten re.
quests. Among them non-resdents of
the various wards, tlliterates and others who
had not met the constitutional requirements.
Judge Christian ruled that the court had no au
thortY TO 20 behind the decision Of the regis
trar. Ills action must stand even though the
vote should have been shown Illegal
fudge McIemores decision holds the exact
reverse. He maintains that no voter is prop,
erp qualified who has not made written appli
cation to register and that the Law does not
contemplate giving the registrar authority to
register whom he Will
It is an anamoious situation indeed when
these honorable and learned judges give forth
from the bench two diametrically opposed in
terpretaiions of the same law. II would seem
to indicate that the wording of the statute is
ambiguous or obscure. If such be the case. it
is highly important that the law should be made
clear and emphatic and that early as prac-
ticable The seriousness of the situation is EN-
phaszed by the fact that there is appeal
from the decision of the Judge. and penalty
attached the unworthy acts OF the registrar
Clearly so far as the spirit and intent Of the
law is concerned. Judge McLemore is right,
Such revision of the statute should be made as
will prevent any future decision from declaring
to the contrary Otherwise there always re
mains the danger, az in the Lynchburg case
that the registrar may be vested with such au-
thority By court decisions shall give him
power TO practically determine the electorate.
which is manifestly not contemplated In the
Ian