Show Ii T A SOUND DECISION Judge Zone Sustains the Law in the Liquor Cases A Decision That Will Suppress the State Road Resorts The Principle of Local SclfGoveminent Recognized Judge Zane rendered a decision this morning in the habeas corpus liquor casesI I arguments in which have consumed the time of the Third District Court for the last two days These arguments took avery a-very broad scope but the principal point contested was the validity of the Territorial Terri-torial act of 1882 which authorized county courts to fix the retail liquor license in any sum not exceeding 1200 per annum Under the authority thus granted the County Court of Salt Lake county a few months ago raised the license to the maximum limit 1200 The decision which was very voluminous volumi-nous was one of the most exhaustive and ii i important ever delivered from the bench i in this Territory and will be read with i interest not only by the members of the bar but by all interested in the regulation S regula-tion of the liquor traffic We print below S be-low l a complete report only eliminating the quotations from authorities and previous pre-vious rulings In the case of ex parte TIaines the t Court gave an oral decision in which he renewed the statutes of the United States with reference to this subject and the position of the relators counsel in reference thereto holding in substance that the provision in regard to internal revenue was not violated by the provisions pro-visions of the Territorial statute providing for a license to be imposed upon dealers in i liquor I THE STATUTE OF THE UNITED STATES I Referred to was passed for the purpose of revenue and the United States Supreme Court has held that a license from State was nothing more than a regulation of the liquor traffic The statute of the United States provides simply that a person per-son who pays the license imposed by that statute shall be subject to no penalties under the national law The question is whether the Territorial statute should be considered a national law I think not It is further insisted that this enactment enact-ment is in conflict with the Constitution of the United States This question wat before the Supreme Court of the United States in the case reported in 18 Wallace Before referring to that however I will read the PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION Which it is claimed this conflicts with All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction juris-diction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside re-side No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States nor shall any State deprive any person of life liberty or property without due process of law nor deny to any ner son within its jurisdiction the equal l protection pro-tection of the laws The Supreme Court of the United States seems to have passed upon that question in that case The attention of the Supreme Court seems to have been called to the question of whether before the 14th amendment the law was unconstitutional uncon-stitutional and then refers to that amendment amend-ment and holds that it was not in conflict con-flict with it The state of public feeling which called for the enactment of this amendment was that in some Stares of the Union the slave population which had been recently liberated it was feared would not receive the EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW Without such an amendment as this and that was the object and purpose of this amendment The Court held that a license law was not in violation of that part of the fourteenth four-teenth amendment nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws and the Court thought that such a law referred not to special persons but to a special business which was deemed injurious to the pub licThe The first section of the Utah statute i prohibits the manufacture or sale of liquors without a license and section three provides under what circumstances liquors may be sold It requires a petition peti-tion to the county court if it is outside a city or to the city council if inside a city a bond to be filed and the license fee to I be paid The Court then referred to Desty on Taxation stating that the authorities there were conflicting and that he was disposed to follow one line of the decisions deci-sions there cited After reading the text and the references to decisions and also reading from Dillon on Municipal Corporations Cor-porations page 357 the Court went onto on-to say that the object of a license was to protect society from the injurious effects of the business and hence it is not only regulated but restrained it is restrained to particular places in some cases it is restrained to comparatively few persons by imposing a high license and to responsible re-sponsible persons and the reason for charging a large fee in such cases is dif ferent from what it would be if a man wanted to engage in the express business or in keeping a ferry or as an insurance agent or any other business that is use ful or beneficial to society I am of the opinion that the fee charged here must be regarded as for the purpose of REGULATING AND RESTRAINING The sale of intoxicating liquors and the revenue is an incidental effect of it The main purpose of it is the regulation and the restraining of the sale of intoxicat ing liquors That being so I am of the opinion that the rule of uniformity of taxation if it were applicable would not apply to this case as it is applied to taxation tax-ation But I understand that the main objection to this statute is that it is unfair inasmuch as it authorizes the County Court to fix the license in any sum not less than one hundred nor exceeding twelve hundred dollars in the county outside the city and gives the City Council the right to fix it in the city and inasmuch as the County Court has fixed the license at 1200 outside of the city and under this statute it cannot be applied in the city that therefore the tax is not uni form if it be considered a tax But I am disposed to hold thatprinciple of uniform ity to that extent would not apply It would seem unjust to say that a person who engages in the selling of intoxicating liquors or who manufactures them in the city should pay the licence of 1200 to the county and another 1200 to the city That would be unjust This law is based upon the principle of self government govern-ment I suppose and recognizes THE PRINCIPLE OF LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT The will of the State to determine within the limits prescribed by the statute the amount of the licence gives to the County Court the right to fix it in the county outside the cities I am inclined in-clined to think that is done in most of the States and it is very common in probably most of the States where the authority is given the cities to fix the license li-cense fee and issue the license and re celvo the revenue and outside of the cities the county fixes it sometimes pos ibly township authorities may have the authority au-thority given to them in some cases ANOTHER OBJECTION TO TIllS LAW Was that it exempted a certain class of persons engaged in the manufacture apd sale of intoxicating liquors The provision provi-sion of this section 13 is No provision provi-sion of this act shall be so construed as to authorize any county court or county officer to interfere with the rights granted to municipal corporations by their several sev-eral charters and the amendments thereto there-to to license tax regulate restrain and prohibit the manufacture selling or in any other manner disposing of vinous spirituous and malt liquors within the corporate limits or to prohibit vine growers grow-ers without a license from expressing and selling on the premises where expressed ex-pressed the pure juice of the grape in quantities not less than five gallons to one person at one time THIS SECTION EXEMPTS From the operation of the law the vine growers The vine growers and those who engage in the cultivation of the soil are generally the objects of favor of legislators to some extent but of course no legislature would prohibit the growing of vines and graperies and I suppose would not prohibit the sale of grapes and this law extends the right to sell the pure juice of the grape when the pulp is separated from the juice It authorizes the sale of the juice provided it is sold where expressed and in quantities not less than five gallons and all persons who are so engaged in raising grapes are exempt But after it comes out of their hands the exemption does not follow I presume that THIS IS A REASONABLE EXEMPTION It is not such a violation of the general principle of uniform ity as applied to the case as would render this law of no effect If persons sold only the pure juice of the grape in quantities of not less than five gallons I do not suppose it woule be very injurious to society These are all the points that occur tome I to-me now There were a number of others but I do not think they were well taken The petitioner will be remanded to the custody of the oflicer There were two cases the decision in this case deciding the two Judge McBride Mc-Bride stated that for the purpose of getting get-ting the case before the Supreme Court he would probably apply to His Honor as Chief Tustice of the Supreme Court for a writ returnable in that court so that it might be there determined |