The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1919-09-03
CONSERVATION IN
| NEW JERSEY CAMPS

Jersey City, N. j.. commissioners
granted 702 liquor licenses to apph-
cants to continue the sale of booze for
the coming year regardless of the
fact that war Prohibition was in eff
feet and that constitutional Prohibi-
ton would become operative six
months before the expiration of the
license term. They acted on the adj
vice of John Milton, Corporation
Council, who said in his opinion;
My conclusion is that what
your board should do Is to issue
the license as usual in the Gus
J. tomary form and / might call
your attention to this fact. that
the enforcement of the amend
ment is federal act. 1t does not
rest upon this board. 1t rests upon
the federal authorities.
Mr.. Milton concluded his opinion
with statement that anyway Jer-
sey City needs the money"
The ANTI League. of New
Jersey contested the action of the
commissioners before Supreme Court
Justice Swayze. The case was de-
Tended by the Corporation Counsel
of Jersey City and by the Brewers
attorneys Justice Swayze In his de-
cision fled in the Supreme Court in
Trenton on August Ia declares that
the 700 liquor Licenses granted by the
Board of Commissioners at Jersey
City were issued clearly without au-
thority of the law. This decision has
caused CONSERVATION In liquor circles
not only in Jersey City but through
out New Jersey, especially in Hudson,
Essex and Passaiek counties, where
thousands of saloons are now open
doing business without authority of
law upon the strength of licenses
granted in violation of Federal laws
and the Federal Constitution. The
Justice held that the licenses granted
by the Jersey City Board of Com
nlissioners in that 1t purported to
authorize the sale OF spirituous, vinous.
malt and brewed liquors, and in that
it authorized the sale of such bever-
ages during the time when their sale
was entirely prohibited by the Fed
.eral law on and after the first day OF
July. 1919, was clearly unlawful and
moreover, the justice said
The sale of any Intoxicating
liquor for beverage purposes is
absolutely prohibited after jan
uary Is, 1920 and the license
purports to permit the sale for
nearly six months longer,
The justice waived aside the claim
of property rights in the case of an
old holder OF license for renewal,
stating that there was no evidence
that thexlicensee would have accepted
a license limited to a period between
the ending of the war and the in
coming of Constitutional Prohibition.
He also held to be without merit the
contention that Mr.. Samuel Wilson
representative of the Anti Saloon
League who prosecuted the case. had
no standing to prosecute the action
because of his not being especially
injured In distinction from the rest of
the public. He pointed out that IT
was admitted in the argument that
Mr. Wilson was resident OF Jersey
City and that by prior decision in the
court he had right to question by
direct attack the validity of munich
pal action which may stand in the way
of prosecution of a crime by the Fed
eral authorities.
John Milton, Corporation Counsel
for Jersey City. has notified reprA
sentatives of the press that he will
appeal the case to the Court Of Errors
and Appeals.
No Valid Liquor License In N. j.
1t is now clear that there is not In
New Jersey valid liquor license that
will even permit the sale Of ais per
cent beer. The decision OF Justice
Swayze settles the point beyond any
question of controversy. That decis-
ion says:
BY virtue of the federal 1egis-
lation the sale of distilled spirits
for beverage purposes was Illegal
+. after June 80. 1919, until the con-
ciusion of the present war. and
no beer, wine or other intoxicat-
ing beverages were to be sold for
beverage purposes
Moreover. sale of any intoxt-
eating liaaor for beverage pur
poses Is absolutely prohibited
after January 8, 1920, and the IL
cense purports to permit the sale
for nearly six moths longer,
T' On tie strength of the foregoing
facts the justice decided that the