| Show THE VALIDITY OF THE LIQUOR ORDINANCE in the supreme court of the territory i tills this forenoon chief chiet justice hunter and associates emerson and twiss on the bench the argument in the habeas corpus caso cas se of george A ynie INIe ears cars involving the tiie question of the validity of or the liquor ordinance of this city were heard very little public interest was taken in the ca case 0 O scarcely a score of people attorneys included being in court while the easo case was being argued J tj Rawl Baw ilus lius esq appeared with judge miner in I 1 behalf of the city arthur brown esq E sq and mr air huey in behalf of mr in arguing the question each side was limited to one hour mr huey opened forler for lor mr his line of argument A as detailed in the brief being somewhat ai follows that it might be said to bo be an open question li how w far a territorial legislature might go in granting to other others y esa esc mat that we une 0 ordinance r d in quest stion ion lon was wd passed passa e by the council of salt sait lahe lake city feb 16 issi 1891 that thab tile tho sole power of or the charter was to regulate regul ite the business and to license licence regulate or restrain those engaged in it and that the ordinance was framed solely to raise money nor for the tiie u o and benefit of the city this counsel claimed was beyond the grant of authority and is in the nature of a tax illegal and void etwas it was further claimed that the city has bas no right to exact any fee in the n nature at ur le of prohibition that the territory itself could not do that that the congress and legislature of the general government had always recognized the traffic in as legitimate and as a business protect ed at the common law it had bad been held this did not interfere with prohibitory hibi hibl tory tony legislation by states state s 0 because local polity of that kind kid in states is sovereign utah was not sovereign it had a grant to legislate on in rightful subjects of legis lotion what had been recognized and approved by congress could not be disproved and forbidden by the creation of its delegated authority the general policy ot qt the territory I 1 was to permit the sale of liquors and not riot prohibit them the business being legal bait salt lake laake city could not by ordinance render ift lit it illegal the tero term of the ordinance relating to the business busine usg sog were merely lu to regular regu latu at th taa urn hibit hi bit not to grant monopoly not to tax A monopoly of a general business was contrary to the constitution of the united states yet the provision for paying and exacting 1000 had been sustained and had been practiced practised and paid as a monopoly counsel argued that it was not intended to tax the liquor business at all the city might regulate the business this was its sole power salt lake Laho city is a city of inhabitants in such a town one might fairly in the nature of humanity expect from 30 to 40 saloons now this fee if collected would furnish a fund of over was there any reason to suppose that sum could be expended in regulating the liquor business five thousand dollars paid into the treasury would be a sum ample to furnish needed legislation and expense penso pense ce connected with this trade no reported case it is believed could found sustaining so ex exorbitant orbita ot a feia fe for such a town if a municipal ordinance di nance therefore was unreasonable the courts must declare it whenever attacked collaterally mr air rawlins followed on behalf of the city and hi in the tilo course of a very able argument maintained that the business of selling soiling intoxicating liquors on account of I 1 ith ita ts pernicious character is within the police power of the state that it was comp competent eten eien therefore for tor or the I regis egis ogis ture turo to entirely prohibit it either by direct legislation or by confer conferring this power upon municipal author authorities to bo be exercised exer cleed by them acco neco according iti ril to their own discretion ufah wt the city eity charter the power is ex pressly crossly conferred upon I 1 tu the e city cuy not only clyl to license regulate and restrain pih gih the liquor I 1 quor traffie traffic but also to entirely suppress au eppress it under the tilo power to suppress or restrain groceries which means a place for the sale of intoxicating liquors that these powers are conferred in general terms terras and the means of executing execution them are not pointed out in the charter it is therefore llie competent for the council to enact such ordinances as they may deem proper for the execution of those powers and every presumption is in favor of the reasonableness of such euch ordinances the party alleging the contrary must clearly establish it nor is it necessary to label the ordinance with the name of the power from which it may rightfully emanate it would be beju judicially dici ally regarded as emanating from those powers who warranted its passage the power to suppress and restrain implies the power as a means of carrying those powers into all act to require a license and the payment ot of A fee as a means of restriction ot of the bu sines cs and this til is is an exercise not no of t he the tax power but of the po police 1 power which has been conferred upon the municipal authorities which they may exer exercise cise clie for fot the accomplishment L of the objects of the powers granted upon this thia proposition the authorities h d ima lma imi uie the amount amoun 0 offee ee looi 1001 pen pec r year as required by thi thia s ordinance oreance under powers like those conferred upon the city is a rel ren reasonable and proper regulation ula tion that the fact that ta the money may go into the city treasury to bo be applied to the use of tile the city does not impress such a fee with the character of a tax that the power to impose a property tax does not preclude the city from obtaining means in other ways or in exercising in any of the other legitimate powers conferred upon it althis at this stage of the argument the court took recess until 2 on the reconvening of the court judge miner continued the argument on behalf of the Cit yand was followed by mr brown which concluded the discussion each side having occupied the stipulated time the court then adjourned until tomorrow to morrow morning at 10 A decision in the case may be expected la ja about a fortnight |
