Newark evening star and Newark advertiser., 1915-09-28
CALDWELL LIQUOR
QUESTION TO Be
DECIDED LATER
Counsel Must Submit Briefs
Thursday and Decision Will
Be Made Tuesday.

| To give counsel time to submit
briefs on the points of law involved.
Judge William p. Martin yesterday
afternoon postponed his decision in
the Caldwell temperance question un-
| til next Tuesday morning. Briefs
must be filed by o'clock Thursday
afternoon. The court will then con-
slider the matter before reaching the
conclusion to be announced Tuesday.
From the questions asked by the
Judge OF those who spoke in favor of
refusing to renew three liquor licenses
| for the borough 1t was inferred that
| he was very doubtful of his authority
| to grant their requests. The court
seemed chiefly opposed to giving
Caldwell what 1t called local option,
which had been refused by the Legis-
| lature several times.
/ How can grant Caldwell indirect
| ly what has been prohibited directly
by the Legislature?" was the question
that the judge put to Jerome T. Con-
gleton, counsel for the obiectors to
! the licenses, and which the court will
expect an answer to In the lawyers
brief. Judge Martin also pointed out
| that the policy OF the State of New
soy WIS lcB anu nOl Dlplll-
bition. To heed the Caldwell objec-
tors would give that borough what
amounted to prohibition, he said.
Mr. Congleton argued that the mat
ter was purely one for tho discretion
of the court. The law, he pointed
out, gave the court full discretion to
grant or withhold a license, and in
the present case, he said, he thought
the court could take into considera
| ton the protests of the majority of
the voters of the borough, and II 1t
withheld the licenses would not ex-
ceed it's power.
Counsel Makes Argument
Judge James p. Mylod, of Montclair.
| who represented John A. Brady, ap-
plicant for nerenwal of a tavern
| license the outcome of whose case
will decide the cases OF John #. Hull
| and Howard Selover, argued that the
| withdrawal of the licenses would be
in violation of the plain policy of the
| State of regulation. He also strongly
contended that the petition Of the OBJ
| jectors was not signed by majority
of the voters
He reviewed the testimony of one OF
his witnesses, who swore that seven
| ty-six names OF those claimed to be
voters did not appear on the registry
| lists last year This would leave the
| petition, he pointed out, with only
| 310 names of voters, less than a ma
| iority. He also attacked the manner
| in which the petition was circulated.
He asserted 1t wasn't fair, because it
was circulated and signed openly.
Tho proper way to decide n question
/ such as the one involved, he declared,
was by secret ballot
an
knew-business men and others with
whom they had dealings-and asked
for signatures. What business man,
he asked, could refuse to sign for one
OF his customers. Many of those who
signed, he said, would never vote for
q closed town II the ballot was secret,
so no one could know how he had
voted.
Mr.. Mylod called attention to the
fact that several of the town officials
who signed the objections to the
licenses also signed the application of
Brady.
He also cited opinions Of the Su-
preme Court and the Court of Errors
which ruled against the practical pro-
hibition of saloons by means of an
exhorbitant license fee. These de-
cisions, he claimed, plainly establish
ed that the policy of the State was
regulation and not prohibition.
Judge Cites Opinions.
Judge Martin also cited opinions
along that line, and asked the object
ors to show him where he had the
right to 20 against an established pol
icy laid down by the Legislature. He
also questioned the fairness of the
method by which the objectora
sought to have the licenses refused.
DO you consider 1t a fair election?"
he asked Mr.. Congleton and one of
the speakers, William Fl. Van Wart.
president of the Progress Publishing
Company and editor Of the Caldwell
Progress, weekly newspaper. Mr.
Van Wart replied that he did; that
the opponents of the dry movement
had been asked for their views; that
those who signed the petition knew
what they were doing.
Judge Martin let 1t be known that
he didn't consider II fair way of
deciding a question, and seemed to
consider Mr.. Mylod's argument re-
garding the secrecy OF the ballot as
CARRYING weight. The court asked
other questions, and gave the history
of local option laws in this state.
Practically no questions were asked
Mr.. Mylod. who was the only speaker
for the applicants.
The fact that one wholesale liquor
dealer, whose license does not expire
until next spring, would have mo-
nopoly of the business for six months
also seemed to perplex the court.
The courts views on local option
were brought into the discussion when |
Mr.. Congleton stated. "The Legisla-
ture hasn't seen At to give munich
paiities the right to regulate this
traffic which, we all agree, Is the
proper thing to do"
.'I don't" Interrupted the court. Mr. |
Congleton went on with his argument.
Mr.. Congleton asserted that the
right to sell liquor was O. mere priv /
ilege and not right vested In the
holder &C the license Because man
had h. license for sixteen years
was no reason why his license should
be renewed, he declared.
Mr.. Mylod argued that the holder OF |
the license had g. right to assume that
his license having been granted Tor
sixteen years that 1t would be re-
newed again. The license, he de-
clared. had some right to a renewal,
and quoted authorities to back him
up. ,-,
He also said that II the Legisla-
ture intended il could bar saloons and
destroy a business man had given
his life to build up II would nave
made some provision for compensa-
tion for his loss. He made the most
of the fact that Brady had gooo
reputation, had kept his place Tor
sixteen years. and had bought the
nroperty from one of the people now