| Show 1 j COURT UPHOLDS UTAH AN LIQUOR CONTROL LAW LA W HIGH TRIBUNAL n UNANIMOUS IN INi i i STAND ON ACT 1 Right o of f Monopoly l by State Sustained in Decision By Br JE JENNINGS 1 GS PHILLIPS Utah's new liquor law emerge emerged d from its first constitutional test tes t with flying colors Wednesday Although declining to pass upon n some gome provisions of or th the c cn act the state slate supreme court in a an anu n u unanimous opinion written by Chi Chief Chie i f Justice Elias Ellas Hansen unconditionally ally validated Utah's right to engage e hi In and enjoy enjo a monopoly of th the e liquor traffic I The p-The The court denied petitions for fo r jJ permanent writs o of prohibition b by which a group of or resort owners owner s xou sought ought ht to restrain the district courts of of Salt Lake Weber and Carbon Carbo n counties from proceeding with abatement proceedings against their places The resort keepers won one point however howe when the tribunal held that the district courts in issuing temporary injunctions to the liquor commission exceeded their authorIty authority author author- it ity b by attempting to prohibit the lawful use of intoxicating liquor on the padlocked premises Those opposing the law also found foun d solace In the fact that the court refused refused refused re re- fused to pass upon constitutionality y of the financial setup of the liquor yr r C Continued on Tape Pape Two I Column Four Fours UTAH'S LIQUOR LAW UPHELD Continued From Pap Page Ont One commission and several other points raised in the plaintiffs plaintiff's briefs Ruling Limited Th The court t held that it could rule only on the validity of such portions ns of ot the act as are directly involved in the injunctions issued by the district district district dis dis- courts Should these or other provisions be declared unconstitutional how ever the court pointed out the tho entire entire en en- tire Ure act would not be voided for that th-nt reason In other words the tho opinion said even though some provisions of the act may be found invalid in some later case before the court the constitutional constitutional constitutional con con- sections of ot the law Jaw would stand and the state would continue to enjoy a monopoly of tho the liquor business The courts court's ruling on the financial financial finan finan- cial se setup up of the liquor commission will be made mado soon in connection with an action brought brou ht by Chauncey Chaun- Chaun Chauncey Chauncey cey P. P Overfield of Salt Lake City The commission has been ordered to o show cause why it sh should uld not turn over its funds to the state treasurer treasurer treasurer trea trea- surer for disbursement under legislative legis legis- order Involving the same points the court declined to consider consid- consid er r In the injunction case the Overfield Overfield Overfield Over- Over field suit will be set for argument on November 25 The signal for an Immediate drive against liquor Jaw law violators was given by Adam Patterson Jr member mom mom- ber ser of ot the liquor commission when advised of the supreme court ruling It should be an easy task t to eliminate the bootlegger in view of the supreme courts court's decision he be said Cooperation of ot local law enforcement enforcement en en- agencies will aid im tin- measurably Both Police Ponce Chief W. W L. L Payne and Sheriff S. S Grant Young said their departments woul the commission in any enforcement pro pro- gram We Ve are unable to perceive any constitutional objections to the state engaging in the sale and distribution Lion tion of intoxicating liquors the court said in upholding validity of the state monopoly system of liquor control The authority of the legIslature legislature leg leg- to regulate and prohibit traffic in intoxicating liquor is too well established to admit of at de do- bate Beer Section The court disposed first of ot the questions which it ft said could not notie be ie decided in the proceedings before it t and then turned to the beer section sec see tion of with which the opinIon opinion ion on is chiefly concerned All provisions of ot this section are upheld including the limiting of the number of draft beer licenses on a population basis and the method of fixing license fees These provisions provisions provi provi- were vigorously attacked by plaintiffs' plaintiffs attorneys Then coming to the question of Injunctions the court co rt held that the district co courts exceeded their authority authority authority au au- au- au in issuing injunctions against resort owners without first giving jiving them notice of hearing This the he opinion held constituted taking taking tak talc ing property without due process of law The high tribunal Instructed the lower courts to amend the temporary temporary tem tern Injunctions previously issued to enjoin the resort owners owner only from conducting or permitting the continuance of a nuisance until conclusion of ot the trial in each case Only after trial may tho the lower court make findings and if its findings findings findings find find- ings are to the effect that the de defendant defendant defendant de- de has maintained a nuisance then the court shall order that no alcoholic beverages shall be manufactured manu manu- sold kept bartered stored or given away in the places proceeded proceeded pro pro- against the opinion di dI- dI No Bar Found Beer provisions of the tho liquor law were assailed as arbitrary discriminatory discriminatory discriminatory and by counsel for the plaintiffs but the court held there is nothing in the constitution which inhibits the state from re retainIng retaining re- re taming control of ot the sale of light beer within withIn- a municipality The uThe granting of authority to municipalities to fix within their respective boundaries the amount to be charged for a 8 license to sell seU light beer and directing the commission commission com corn mission to pa pay the money collected for such licenses to the municipalities municipal municipal- ties the opinion held is a matter of legislative policy with the wisdom wisdom wisdom wis wis- dom of which the courts are not concerned conce med Neither the court held is any constitutional provision infringed by the portion of oC the liquor law which fixes the number of licenses which may be granted municipalities municipalities' ties ties' on a n basis of population The court ruled that the state has hasas as ns much authority to grant a urn Jim number of Individuals the right to sell beer as it has to award the exclusive privilege of building or operating operating op op- a toll bridge a ferry or other other oth oth- er public utility To the contention that beer is not an Intoxicating liquor the court re replied replied replied re- re plied that the police power of oC the state to regulate the manufacture sale and use of intoxicating liquors is not limited to liquors which in fact are intoxicating but also extends extends ex ex- tends to liquors Supplants Old Law The court also ruled the 1935 liquor law supersedes the beer control control con con- troi law of 1933 under which latter act plaintiffs contended they were licensed to sell seU beer beyond the time the liquor law prohibited I its sale by them Even though the licenses as contended contended contended con con- tended were contracts which they were not still it was competent for tor the legislature under Its police power to nullify the licenses theretofore theretofore theretofore there there- issued the court ruled The court then discussed Its in inability inability In- In ability to pass at this time upon numerous other constitutional points raised b by the plaintiffs but I pointed out even e though it should I find for the plaintiff in these instances instances instances in in- stances those provisions of oC the act deemed constitutional would stand It was contended the vesting in inthe Inthe inthe the governor of the power powei to fix salaries of ot the three liquor commissioners commissioners com corn missioners was an illegal delegation of legislative authority to the executive executive ex ex- branch of the government Financial Setup It also was argued that the fi financial financial fi- fi setup of the commission contravenes numerous sections of th the constitution The liquor law gives the liquor commission supreme supreme su su- su- su preme promo control over its funds when the plaintiffs contended the constitution constitution con con- makes the state treasurer the sole custodian of moneys mones The liquor commissions commission's arbitrary arbitrary arbitrary arbi arbi- power to grant refuse or re revoke revoke re- re voke yoke with or without cause individual individual indi indi- vidual permits to purchase liquor and the same power with respect to the s sale le and distribution of beer were also vigorously assailed by the plaintiffs To those contentions the court re re- re plied piled A holding that such provisions are unconstitutional would be of no avail to the plaintiffs in the Injunction injunction injunction in In- junction proceedings here sought to tobe tobo tobo bo be sta stayed ed and therefore we withhold withhold withhold with with- hold expressing an opinion as to the constitutionality of such provisions until such time as the question is presented by someone who is personally personally personally per per- in danger of having them applied to his disadvantage Not Reviewed In this connection the court advised advised advised ad ad- the plaintiffs it had not overlooked overlooked overlooked over over- looked the allegation that the commission commission com coin mission had revoked a purchase permit of one of their number without without without with with- out notice or hearing explaining this question was another that could not be reviewed at this time The court held that the fact the title of tho the liquor law does not clearly express all aU intents and purposes purposes purposes pur pur- poses of the act does not render it II unconstitutional and that the act does not violate the interstate clause of ot the federal constitution Attorneys Knox Patterson Shirley Shirley Shir Shir- ley Icy P. P Jones E. E A. A Rogers H IL A. A Rich and Arthur Woolley represented represent represent- ed edthe the plaintiff resort owners while E. E M. M Bagley Eagle and Henry D. D Moyle appeared for the liquor commis commis- sion |
