The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1913-11-16
FULL TEXT OF
; DECISION ON
LIQUOR CASE
FINDING OF SUPREME COURT IN
CAUSE WHICH CAME UP TO
TEST coNsTITuTtoNALiTY OF
RECENT STATE LAW

Holding that the petitioner, nav-
ing failed to point ont wherein any
o1 his constitutional rights had been
invaded. by operation Of the statute,
the supresf1e court The past week GlS-
charged the writ brought up ON haDeaS
CpTpuS frnua Key West and -e1aanded
the Defendant. The full text OF the
decision, previously noted in these
columns, Is as fellows
The Full Opinion
In the supreme court Of Florida
June Term, A. .. 1913. Tx Parte,
Frank LsewinsEEys peizoner Original.
CccEoezsll. J..
This is an original proceeding In
this court. urcn 4 w1-at Of habeas COR
pus issued by one OF the js1tfces, re-
Gurzalpfe to the full court. TIE pe.a-
toner Is in custody uDde- q warrant
issued by the county judge Of Monroe
county. cila15ging him with q Vocation
OF Chapter 6516 of the lave Of 1873, in
that he sold Intoxicating liquors 10 q
fesnale, ana also in that he had side
entrances and screens to his bar room
place OF business Tor the sale of in
toxicating liquors.
The cited act OF the legislature is
alleged to be unconstitutional and
void, upon two grounds. The title
being IAN act to regulate the sale
or furnishing of Intoxicating liquors,
wines or beer, and prescribing a pen
atty for the violation of certain Of its
provisions" is said to be too resf-ic-
tive to admit Of profIibttions therein
contained. The assertion is untena
bic. Every regulation is Of necessity
n restriction. Regulate" is defined
by Webster to mean ITO direct by rule
or restriction" and it has been spe-
officially held by the supreme court of
Indiana, as sufficiently expressive of
the subject OF an act. prohibiting the
sale of intoxicating liquors to minors
and to persons in the habit of getting
drunk. William VS. State, As Ind. sos.
Our legislation goes burt one step fur
Their, in that it includes in the restric-
ton also 'females," a class frequently
associated in matters of legislation,
with infants and others in need of
special protection, and a class not now
before us complaining IL they may be
heard to 50 complain, that they are
deprived of any rights in not being
admitted to drink at a public bar.
Our state constitution does not bind
the legislature in dealing with the IL
quor traffic so long as the Iegislati OH
stops short Of actual or practical pro-
hibitAon, and II may not be properly
claimed that the present act goes that
far. The federal constitution leaves
the regulation Of the liquor business
entirely to the Aseyerai states to deal
with or prohibit as they may see fit,
with possible exceptions not here in
Voived, and we conceive of no valid
reasons why a liquor dealer may OBJ
Ject successfully that the legislature
females, or persons intoxicated, or for
bid him privacy in the sale of the in
Toxicants or the privilege of making
his place Of business attractive for
loiter, by the use Of chairs and tables.
4 proviSo to the act makes 1t not
applicable To hotels having one hun
dred rooms or more and this proviso it
d. asserted, is an arbitrary classidca-
ton. To strike down an act, as class
Legislation, requires the strongest of
n q all a is
classification, and unless the classifi-
cation is palpa.bly arbitrary, without
possible basis for distinctions made
BY the law making power, the courts
should not intervene.
We may suggest as a reasonable
basis for the classification, that in
very large hotels the bar is an incident
merely and that the hotel manage
ment, under constant supervision OF
the state VIII see to it by reason of
self protection, that the bar is con-
Quoted in an orderly decent manner,
whereas in the smaller hotels the Ii
and the hotel, the incident. Where the
dividing line may be placed is pri-
rnarily for the decision of the legisla-
ture. and it is not, nor from our
lSnowlcdga OF Florida as q state. much
freQuented by winter tourists, can II
decently be claimed, that the line is so
placed as to apply to but few hotels.
A smaller number of rooms might
have subjected the state to the crying
evil. SO vigorously denounced by the
press and public not many years ago
supposedly produced by the So called
Raines law in the most pcputous state
OF the union.
we may add that the act does not
confer any privileges not tlleretcfore
enjoyed By hotels CT hundred rooms,
but Es1ereiy does not add 70 the former
restrictions, and therefore rfI1ch of the
argument addressed t0 the favoE1tism
for that class does not apply.
The petitioner, haviag fsssed to
point out wherein any OF his coRrstitu-
rional rights have been invaded. Ct
follows that the writ must be dis
charged and he be rernanded
ShackIeScrds G. J.. and TAYLOR
Hooker and Whitfield, J. j., concur