Daily evening star. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1852-1854, 1853-10-24
DAILY EVENING STAR.
communicated.
THE PROHIBITION QUESTION

had upon this matter, by the ayes and
noeS, both of which seem to have got eS-
tray III regard to the exact effect of the
vote. 1t will be remembered that large
majority was given for no License. Among
others, Mr. Ulysses Ward, over his own
signature, takes mistaken view of it in
recent number of the Sentinel" Then
the resolutions are quoted at large, which
the Star says will - afford correct un-
derstanding Of the subject" They say
" the vote of the people thus took the sub
.ect OF license, in so far as it relates to
prohibition, out Of the hands of the Cor
poration, on its own submission of the
question, hence the Council had not the
power to pass the recently proposed tip
ping bill, rs contained in clause rroLi-
6H'ng the sale ofliquorsin tirpling houses.
Under the vote OF the sovereign people on
the above resolutions, we submit, that the
act. if passed, would have been null and
void, so far as n relates to the prohib-
ton. That question is referred by the
people solely 10 Congress"
feel it my duty to take brief notice
of the remarks of the Star on this sub
ject. especially so as they have thought
proper to call my views ''misfakcn." Il
remark, first, that this declaration of the
Star must have been made without due
reflection. If the writer will consider hut
for one moment, he will discover from the
city charter that the power is expressly
given ''to restrain or prohibit tiprling
houses" therefore there could have been
no doubt about power 50 clearly eX-
pressed. There has, however, a doubt
existed in regard TO taverns. whether the
power to regulate can extend TO prolibi-
ton. There are many persons who be-
lieye the power to regulate may be used
to prohibit, and the Corporation have
used it in certain cases; but there were,
AMI are still, Others who doubt on this
point. Therefore it was that the CoGn-
ellis, in seeking for full power to eradi-
cate the traffic in Intoxicating liquors as
beverage, in order ,C put it beyond all
doubt, determined to apply to Congress
to grant. in express terms, the full power
over the whole subject, and they chose,
as very proper course, toplace the sub
,joct before the voters-certainly not with
view to throw off any power or control
already given by the charter over this
subject, but to increase it, if not already
Of sufficient extent. Suppose that appli-
cation is made to Congress to amend our
charter, and they refuse to make any
amendment, does the Star say that our
present charter is null and rod," be-
cause we wished our powers increased,
and they saw proper not to increase them !
This no rttlCctIng mind will admit, and
still we cannot see the difference between
such admission and the conclusion to
which the S'cr came.
Now, contend that the resolution call
ing upon the voters to express their wish
by voting License or No License, is sepa-
rate and distinct. The voters, nv two
thirds 4 less nineteen said No License. "
Yet this does not make anv law, ONLY so
far as public opinion. They expected
the Councils to use all our chartered
powers III making laws or passing acts
in accordance with the vote: and most
certainly never, FOR one moment, did the
voters vino voted :" No License" suppose
that they We're relinquishing any of their
chartered rights. If the corporation has
power TO grant license, it has power 20
withhold them when a majority of the
people wish them withheld. TIE Cor
poration is not bound to give license be-
cause it has the power. This, think,
must bc apparent to every reie; ;tinc
| mind or else the whole Of the powers
granted must be exhausted in order for
the Councils to come up to their duty and
if they are bound to grant licenses be-
cause, by the charter, they have the power,
then they arc bound to prohibit tipplng
houses, because, by the charter, they
have the power. But, I contend the
power does cary with it the necessity to
! do, but having the power, i is 20 be use
! as necessity may require, and surely
there is necessity (that has impelled so
large portion of the authorised voters
to say - No License" and still larger
portion of the community would say No
License for the sale Of intoXicatin"
liquors as Il bcverage.) That licenses fol
! this purposes should be withheld, and all
the acts repealed which authorize the
%a@e as beverage, and vet provision
should be made to supply spirits and
wine for the purposes setforthin my former
communication.
Very respectfully,
! OCTOBER 2l, 1853. ULYSSES WARD.
We give Mr.. Ward the benefit of his
argument above, but cannot see its peril
nacity, as to the question involved We
say that the vote of the people took the
subject of prohibition out of the power
Of the Corporation, if they possessed it.
as Mr.. ". contends; and further, the
Councils thought they did not possess it,
or why ask Congress for the power? II
! Congress does nothing in the matter, tn,
Corporation retains her usual powers tc
I ,.r,,loto 60 op1 b,c not Ihe pou..- y,