Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-02
GptaI anS 9trs0nal

Circuit COurt--Tne Liquor eIuesiOhs-ltl 10
well known that on the ninth Of October last, an
act was passed by the City Councils prohibiting
tippling-houses and for the suppression ofthe sale
Of all Intoxicating liquors in quantities less than
pint. The law went into operation on the first
Monday Of November. On that day, il appears,
Charles Werner, who had obtained license for
keeping atavern-complying with all the require
ments for that purpose-was arrested for selling
glass Of liquor, and, on hearing before Justice
Morse, was fined twenty dollars for an alleged
violation of the act 10 which we have referred.
Mr.. Werner took an appeal from the judgment
of the magistrate in order to test not only his own
right but that Of others engaged in the same bust
ness as himself, 10 sell liquor "by the small, as
an incident TO tavern-keeping a
Yesterday the case was taken up in the Circuit
Court, Judges Morsell and Dunlop presiding
Mr. Joseph H. Bradley appeared for the Cor
| poration, and Messrs r. S. Coke and Carlisle for
Mr.. Werner, the appellant
| Mr.. Bradley addressing the court, said that the
case which was now brought TO their considera-
ton under the late legislation Of the Corpora
ton of Washington. The parties Were Charles
| Werner against the Corporation of Washington.
| He read the several laws heretofore passed with
reference TO the. regulation OF taverns, and the
acts relating TO spurious liquors, including that
1 for the suppression of tippng houses and the pro-
hbition of the sale Of the intoxicating liquids in
/ quantities less than point. On the first Monday
\ Of November, Charles Werner obtained what is
4 commonly called tavern license, and on the Sc
1 venteenth was fined twenty dollars for keeping
open his bar and selling liquors in quantities less
than pint, contrary TO the corporation statute.
/ The first question which arose was, Has Con-
| gress the power TO pass such a law as this 10
prohibit the sale of intoxicating drinks in quanti
i L. -
| pling-houses ; and, further 20 delegate the power
| 10 inferior ministers, created in this District. He
maintained the affirmative, insisting that ii is the
/ right and the duty of the sovereign to pass such
laws may be necessary 10 protect society from
| ills, whether arising from bad arrangements with
regard to health or property that, broad terms,
il is police regulation. Ii is the essential attri
i butte of sovereignty-one OF the great attributes
of government Tor the prevention of as well as the
| remedy for ills. This power has always existed.
II existed in Maryland and by the deed Of cession
has been transferred to the general government
Congress, having legislative power over the
people Of this District cam therefore, empower the
officers of this Corporation 10 carry out those gen.
| era purposes. In support of this argument he
referred TO various decisions of the Supreme Court
of the United States, to the etectthat every State
may regulate its own internal traffic for the we'll
being of the people, and TO guard their health and
| morals. AS 10 how far this power may be abused,
| is another question. <, rs
His next proposition was, that Congress has the
right TO delegate the power, and has delegated il
to the Corporation of Washington. In support Of
this he referred to the Charter of 1890 and to that
Of l64S, 10 show the power OF the Corporation 10
4 pass the liquor act now in question. ftf 4
| He insisted that The Corporation has absolute
power, lst To restrain. and prohibit tipping
| houses; I'd. Power 10 regulate taverns and, Sd.
The general power over licenses for the sale OF
| spurious liquors, and, whether with or without
| license, TO prohibit IT,. As TO taverns he did not
| say thai the keepers cannot furnish drink with
meals. That may be charged a part Of the
| board. However, there may be tipping houses
at the principal hotels well as in other localities;
| in different words, where there is drinking 10 ex
| cess. The power of regulating taverns does not
amount 10 prohibition, but 10 prevent tipping
houses. II he was right in those views, the Cor
poration was entitled TO judgment against the APP
Pellant.
/ Mr.. Carlisle said this question was one of great
interest In The FIRST place, the class of persons,
| OF whom this appellant was one, are numerous
in Washington. There are others engaged in the
liquor business, and with them this is question
Of life and death. Then, there many people
u who do not feel disposed, when they thirsty,
TO drink a pint. The act misnamed. Ii ought
TO be entitled ian act TO compel 10 drink
pint of brandy or aleu- tLaughter.l The question,
too, was interesting to those who exceedingly
Incorporate the question Of temperance; and
of interest TO lawyers, il being nice question.
Ever since the foundation Of Washington, liquor
| selling has been lawful trade. II has not only
been promoted and encouraged, but the arms oil
the Corporation have been opened wide 10 receive
/ all avern-keepers, and 10 take from each sixty
dollars. All Of a sudden, under some sort Of pres
sure, and with short notice, Of less than thirty
| days, il is now sought 10 suppress them; and
1 when their proprietors have made provision for
the winter, for the accommodation oftheir guests.
| The Corporation has passed two ordinances TO
break up this great business--great account of
the number OF persons interested in il, and the
| amount of capital invested The result would be
that those who have laid in their stock would be
unable 10 meet the demands made upon them.
The warrant charged that Charles Werner be-
ing the keeper Of tavern, in the fourth ward did
sell and barter rum, brandy gin, whisky mixed or
unmixed, in quantities less than pint The charge
is not that he sold liquor without license, that
he was the keeper Of tipping house, or bar ! but
that simply, being atavern-keeper, he sold liquor
10 somebody in quantity less than pint.
The question was: What is meant by tavern
keepers A man must satisfy the Corporation that
he is, in substance, an inn-keeper and common
viciualer. He must show that he has certain &C.
commodations for man and horse The law spe-
cifcally points out what man must have and do
before license can be issued.
AS TO what tavern means, they had the deri-
walton Of the word from the Latin: fa6ernd-a
place where drink is sold. "Your honors," he
said, shave not forgotten that Horace speaks of
wine shops on the banks OF the Tiber In the
proper pathological sense, a tavern means where
wine is sold and drunk on the premises there
fore, license 70 Keep tavern carries with II The
license 20 sell liquor. In other words il is an inn.
want 10 know what common fathers would
have said il they had been told that tavern was
a place where they.could get something 10 eat
but not to drink. The legitimate meaning Of
tavern-keeping is inn.keeping."
The appellant in this case is in the exercise Of
lawful occupation or trade lawful at the common
law; lawful by al former legislation, and invov-
ing the dispensing or sale ofliquors by the small
You may make some other trade Of il by altering
the mans occupation and IL you take away the
principal part Of bis business, the other must
fail. He contended that IL this bylaw prohibits
the man from selling in quantities less than
pint il is in restraint OF lawful trade. He did not
think il necessary 10 argle the abstract question.
The eyes Of the law recognise il lawful trade,
as well as any other. lie wished TO know where
was the power Of the Corporation to pass law
TO restrain lawful trade The bylaw being void
in part, Is void in whole.
He contended that the power over taverns is
made matter Of specific grant; and taverns, in
the charter, is classified with all other legal BUSH
moss. The Corporation can only provide for
licensing and regulating taverns. thew can