The Grangeville globe. [volume] (Grangeville, Idaho) 1907-1922, 1912-06-27
FAN REFUSE
THEM LICENSE
c,eme Court Sustains Ac-
ron of Lemhi County
Commissioners.

The supreme court IN decl-
i handed down last week sus-
mod the county commissioners
= Iemhi county in their refusal
: ;ssue liquor license to Will
lam Anderson of Salmon.
~ The case, which bears the title
! william Anderson and the city
= Salmon against the board Of
commissioners of Lemhi county,
,,;cinated in the district court
n the sixth district before Judge
I.mes NJ. Stevens. In that court
Iudoe Stevens authorized the is
rssnce of a writ of mandate di-
letting the county commissioners
i issue a liquor license to Will
lam Anderson, who planned to
,0nduct saloon in Salmon. The
mnreme court s decision reverses
that Of the lower court.
Power of Commissioners.
This appeal to the supreme
court was carried up by the
emnty commissioners. 1t involves
the question as to whether or
not q board of county commits
soners have the power of dis.
retion, under the law, to reject
an application for a liquor IL
eense where application is made
to sell intoxicating liquors within
the boundaries of an incorporat-
ed city. The board of commits.
soners took the position that
they had a right under the statute
to exercise their judgment and
discretion in the matter Of issu-
ing liquor license, whether for
the sale of intoxicating liquors
within or without an incorporat-
ed city. Judge Stevens, on the
other hand, held that they have
no such right or discretion where
the application is made for the
sale of liquors within the boun-
daries of an Incorporated city.
Law on This Point.
Justice Ailshie, who fathers the
supreme courts ruling, refers
to section 1903 of the revised
codes and in commenting upon
its applicability to the issues pre-
sented in the case at bar launches
into an interesting treatise touch
ing upon the legal status of the
liquor traffic. Judge Ailshie says
in part:
In constituting this provision
Of the statute it is necessary to
bear In mind the status Of the IL
qur business. 1t is not the eX
eNise Of any natural or inherent
right or recognized lawful bust
ness. No one has an inherent
Or natural right to engage in
the liquor traffic and statutes au
'hOrlzing the licensing Of the IL
quOr business and comforting the
night ON the licenses to sell and
traffic in intoxicating liquors
must be read and construed in
The light of a grant of authority
rather than a limitation of nation
al right.
I'm this respect it differs from
me licensing of ordinary mer-
camille and manufacturing indus
rles and enterprises or any Or
anary commercial business. In
nls latter class of cases the right
existed independent of and be-
.Ofe any license or regulation was
imposed upon it. In the liquor
BUSINESS the right did not exist
mere until it was conferred by
statute.
II follows, therefore, that one
VINO seeks to establish the right
v carry on the business Of sell
Jug and disposing of intoxicat-
Jug liquors must point out a clear
"a unmistakable grant by law
" SO engage in such business;
vv@erwise, no such right exists.
nsre the law-making power has
'u'norlzed the licensing of appli-
saa1s to sell intoxicating liquors
naer certain regulations and re-
srictlonS and has said that such
appiications may be granted or
.e1ected by said board as here
NATTER provided. Nowhere else
= 'nere any provision restricting
Aat power and discretion, but
ssctlon 1903 provides the method