Evening public ledger. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1914-1942, 1916-03-15

"
neishborhoOd to keen saloons out Of Il. This
dition will prevail until the law Is amended.
! T1HE no-license people of the Twenty-second
Il Ward are in fair way to learn that an in
| formal referendum is powerless TO close the
saloons
When the License Court yesterday refused
| to hear the remonstrances of the No-Bicense
League of Germantown, on the ground that
! they were not necessary, It acted within it's
rights. 1t is easy to argue that the court
ought to have listened to the protests Of the
| citizens and to have respected the wishes of the
remonstrants. There is no doubt that the
| court ought to take into consideration the
| state Of public sentiment in a community
| Nhen It is considering the renewal of license
to sell liquor. But there is no machinery pro-
vided for asCertaining with any degree of accu-
racy what the state of public sentiment is.
The law assumes that licenses are to be
granted. When a man has conducted his
saloon In orderly manner II has been the
practice of the courts in this county to renew
the license. The burden of proof rests upon
the opponents If the license is to be cancelled.
1t is not enough to assert that the sale of
liquor is an evil and its use moral offense.
The law does not admit either Of these propo-
sitlons. Proof must be offered in each case
lated public decenCy or the law or is objec-
tonable for other reasons than that 1t is
saloon.
If IL can be proved by valid testimony that
the saloon is not a public convenience for the
accommodation of those in the habit of using
stimulants, the Judges are justified in refusing
to renew a license. They may be justified for
other reasons. But there is no doubt what
ever OF their duty to keep saloons from dis
tricts where there is not a demand from those
who patroniZe them.
The Judges have wide discretion and diff
ferent Judges take different views of the ex-
tent of their discretion. Evidence which in
one county will convince a Judge that no
licenses should be granted will be rejected by a
Judge in another county. There is no uniform
ity of action throughout the Commonwealth.
The appeals to the higher courts have left the
matter in very unsatisfactory state, because
these courts have usually refused to interfere
with the exercise of the discretion Of the lower
tribunals.
The Germantown referendum, like that in
West Philadelphia, was an attempt to enforce
local option without the bounds of the law
In Germantown 377O signatures were obtained |
to protests against the renewal of licenses The |
protestants were opposed to saloons on general |
principles. They would doubtless have signed |
the protest If there had been only saloon |
in the whole district But they did not consti-
tute a majority of the 10000 voters in the |
Twenty-second Ward. If there had been a |
local option law in force they would not have |
carried the ward against license.
We are not arguing in favor of saloons or |
against them, but are merely exhibiting the |
difficulties which the temperance people meet |
when they attempt to secure a reduction in |
the number of drinking places.
1t Is not necessary to damn the court II
there Is to he any criticism 1t should be
directed against the law itself. The General
Assembly was asked last winter to pass local
option law which would permit the citizens
of the counties TO decide for themselves
whether liquor should be sold or not. The
bill failed of passage for reasons not neces.
sary to go into. With all its defects it would
have been an improvement on the present
statute, for it would have taken from the
Judges part of the burden of performing
non-judcial functions In counties which had
decided against the saloon there would have
been no licenses and in counties which de-
cided in favor of the sale of liquor the Judges
would have been left TO exercise the same
kind of discretion which now rests in them.
Germantown however, would not have been
helped by the county option bill, which the
last Legislature killed. for it is part of a
county If Philadelphia County had voted
for license, the courts would doubtless have
acted as they seem disposed to act now.
The whole license controversy in Philadel
pha this winter should be educative People
who never knew it before must now know
that there is no statute prohibiting the sale
of liquor where IL is public convenience and
that the courts to be the judges of the
law and the facts. People know that there is
no local option rule which compels the
Judges TO deny a license where a considerable
protest is made. And it has been discovered
that they do not think it necessary to give
the protests of a neighborhood respectful con.
sideration.
1t is evident that if there is TO be any
change in the license policy of the State the
General Assembly must first change the law
Unless all signs fail. the license question will
be one OF the live issues in the campaign this
wear.