« السابقةمتابعة »
High license is a subterfuge, pure and simple, intended to detract and divert attention from the evils of the saloon. It is an invention of the saloonbossed politician to salve the public conscience and intrench the saloon for another decade. It is not in any sense a temperance measure.
It is, a compromise that is always interposed by the saloon forces against a demand for local option or absolute saloon prohibition.
Sam Small says: "High license was invented by the devil and patented by the politicians to coin dollars to lay on the eyes of dead consciences to make 'em look respectable.”
And, we add, endorsed by the liquor traffic as an efficient means of evading the rising tide of saloonannihilation sentiment. The best proof of this proposition is the statements of the traffic itself. As proof of the assertion, we call attention to some of the declarations of liquor organs and apostles.
The Bar says: "A good high license to help pay their taxes will pacify their conscience; nothing else will.
Brewers Journal,—“High license reforms nothing, and, where it has been given a fair trial, it has been to the liquor dealer eminently satisfactory from a financial point of view."
J. M. Atherton, ex-president of the National Protective Association, an organization of distillers and wholesale liquor-dealers,—“The true policy of the liquor trade to pursue is to advocate as high a license as they can, in justice to themselves, afford to pay. This catches the ordinary tax-payer, who cares less for the sentimental opposition to our business than he does for taxes upon his own property. The most effective weapon with which to fight prohibition is high license."
Bowler Brothers (brewers) Worchester, Mass.,"Your battle cry must be high license versus prohibition."
Deversean and Mersede, liquor dealers of Boston, in a published letter say: "Advocate high license. Don't think that you can silence the pulpit, but you can induce them to advocate high license on moral grounds.”
Peter Iler, a Nebraska brewer,—"High license does not hurt our business, but, on the contrary, has been a great benefit to it. I believe somewhat that high license acts as a bar against prohibition. I do not think high license lessens the quantity of liquor used."
A FEW THINGS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
If the principles of law approved in the cases of Columbia Club vs. State, 143 Ind. 98, and State vs. French Lick, etc. Co. and State vs. West Baden etc. Co. 82 N. E. Rep. 801, should be invoked by the Attorney General against the brewery saloons, these saloons can not only be closed, but the charters of the brewery corporations operating them may be forfeited and their property placed in the custody of receivers.
The Supreme and Appellate Courts have both said a saloon, operated without a license, is a public nuisance per se. If this principle should be applied, or the blind tiger statute or the rule of law, approved in the French Lick case, should be enforced, the clandestine saloon on the Monument Circle in Indianapolis, almost within the shadow of the State House, and operated in the club building of a political party professing to stand for the principles of Lincoln, can be closed, and the public convinced that political party influence does not control the administration of public office.
In this club building, the criminal liquor statutes of the state are openly and flagrantly violated every day in the year. To enforce the law against this organization, may, as a party policy, be like the revision of the tariff. It may be too late to do it before the election and too early to do it afterward. CHAPTER X X
SOLTAU VS. YOUNG
The following is a complete, verbatim copy of the opinion of Judge Artman in the case of Albert Soltau vs. Schuyler Young:
“At the January session, 1907, of the Board of County Commissioners of Marion county, Albert Soltau filed his application for a license to sell intoxicating liquors at retail in the tenth ward of the city of Indianapolis. Schuyler Young and William J. Trefz, voters of said ward, appeared before said board and filed their remonstrance. Such proceedings were had before the board that a license was granted to the applicant, and, from this order of the board, the remonstrators appealed to the Marion Circuit Court. From that court the case came to this court on a change of venue.
RIGHT TO LICENSE DENIED
In this court the remonstrators have filed what they term an amended remonstrance, in which they deny the right of the board of coinmissioners and also of this court to grant such a license, for the following reasons :
First-Because said board of commissioners did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of said application, and this court has not now jurisdiction over the subject matter of said application.
Second-Because the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail, to be drunk as a beverage, is destructive of the public morals, the public health and the public safety, and is, therefore, inherently immoral and unlawful, and can not be licensed under the constitution of the state of Indiana, or the constitution of the United States.
Third-Because the sale of intoxicating liquors at retail, to be drunk as a beverage, upon the premises where sold, is destructive of public morals, the public health and the public safety, and is, therefore, inherently immoral and unlawful, and can not be licensed under the constitution of the state of Indiana, or under the constitution of the United States.
Fourth-Because Sections 7279, 7281, 7283 and 7284 of the Burn's Revised Statutes, 1901, and being license law of 1875, under which said license is sought to be granted, are unconstitutional as being in conflict with the spirit and purpose us the constitution of the state of Indiana, as set out in the preamble of said constitution.
Fifth-Because Sections 7279, 7281, 7283 and 7284 of Burn's Revised Statutes, 1901, and being license law of 1875, under which said license is sought to be granted, are unconstitutional as being in conflict with section one, article one of the constitution of Indiana.
Sixth-Because Sections 7279, 7281, 7283 and 7284 of Burn's Revised Statutes, 1901, and being license law of 1875, under which said license is sought to be granted, are unconstitutional as being in conflict with section one, article eight of the constitution of Indiana.
For which reasons the remonstrators pray, that the application be dismissed.