The Sidney herald., 1955-12-15
'sMOEsE0uG 7His Weak.

1853 ~ eOR
system intended sharply to linn
1t the number of retail lio1Ior
and beer licenses was set up.
predlcated on the idea of keep
ing the number Of retail outlets
IN balance with the population
and other factors. Now the quota
ger.
The Montana liquor control
BOARD IS trying most ~conscien-
tlously to administer the Honor
and beer acts as they are and
not as someone might wish them
70 be. The board has refused to
resort to subterfuge or other
means to circumvent the letter of
these laws. If in some respects
these laws are too harsh or he
cause of their general provisions
may seem unfair in individual
instances, that is a matter for the
legislature to correct.
From the way in which at least
one district judge has been ruling
IN suits involving the quota law
and the states jurisdiction over
the liquor traffic, I cannot but
feel that in this field. as in others.
there is a tendancy by some mag
lstrateS to want to invade the
legislative realm. Still before the
supreme court at this writing is
an appeal from the Lewis and
Clark county district court hold
ing that a Blackfeet Indian tri-
bal ordinance ~supersedes the state
liquor and beer laws. This ordi-
nance challenges the sovereignty
OF the state of Montana.
A case pending in Park coun-
ty, on which a hearing is sched-
uled for this week, should 20 TO
the supreme court for final de-
termination, for one of the cues
lions 1t raises - under a 1855
amendment - is that of public
convenience and necessity in the
issuing of liquor and beer licen-
ses. This is not the only point
the litigation, but certainly it
IS a very important n in rela-
ton to the liquor boards auth
0rity and discretion in acting on
license applications.
AS to rail and highway trans
oortation, there is a considerable
body of law on public conven-
ence and necessity but it is said
this is a virtually unexplored
egaI wilderness so far as the
liquor and beer traffic are con-
'erned. Having in mind that there
persons opposed to the LIQUOR
business in any form, and per
.onS at the opposite pole of
linking, the question of public
Convenience and necessity as to
ntoxicants is obviously highly !
Controversial.
Liquor law enforcement. diff
ult under the most favorable :
circumstances, is all the more
ifficult unless a rather tight
INIT is imposed on the number ;
I retail licenses. If there are too :
lany retail outlets for the amount !
+ business available, operators |
n the ragged edge may be temp :
ed to take chances. That has {
cen one of the troubles regard =
lg sale to minors. :
By the time of the next Iegis- !
lture there should be clarified .
on Of our liquor and beer laws. !,
nd in the light of these interpre- 7
atoms, the legislature should take !
mother look at the whole situa- :
on. Z
The state began operating I'M s
er the monopoly system in 1884. !
rom that beginning through the {
seal year that ended June 80 :
lis year, the liquor control board +
as transmitted to the state treas s
ry $80,346, 588.84 in net revenue +
liquor profits, excise tax on +
quor, distribution of profits from b
quor and beer licenses and re- 5
from the beer tax. This \
oes not include the revenue from
eer prior to 1887 when the state b
bard of equalization administer v
/ the beer act. This would prob e
ply add at least a million dol b
RS to the total. il
From my point of view. that \
a lot of money. Revenue dis Il
lrsed by the liquor board to
state treasurer is one of the "
lief sources of state general fund j
come. The last six years the "
take has never been less
an five million dollars. In fis- Il
i 1954-55 it was $5,485.117.23. S
ne year before it was $6,OO1,- S
.1.23. Top year was 1881, 1888 Al
calendar 1949. tC
Comparing the last four fiscal j
airs, liquor sales by the board Il
ere 16,158, 5O7.05 in 1882: a
1868, 1924 in 1928; ST. =
9,191.18 in 1953-54, and ST. G
2 go Cd in 1879 80. on 100 -