Daily American organ. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1856, 1854-12-04

L i
Much interest was excited in the proceedings.
Among the listeners were many persons engaged
in the business affected by the litigation.
SATURDAY, Dec. 2.--This morning, contrary to
expectation, Mr. Z. O. Darlington appeared in adj
dtion to Messrs. Carlisle and Coke for the appel
lant and addressed the Court in substance as fol-
lows:
Mr. c. contended that 1t involved principle of
great moment to every man in the community 10
wit: Whether the Corporation could assume the
power to pass any act which they might think me-
cessary to preserve the public morals The right
to destroy one mans business to-day, upon that
ground, would give them the right to destroy, up
on the same ground, the business Of any other
man tomorrow.
That the powers of the Corporation in the char
ter were clearly defined and prescribed He made
two general propositons--FiIst. Congress had no
right to invest the Corporation with power to pass
the act in question; Second That, II Congress had
that right il had not in the charter delegated that
power to the Corporation. Congress could pass
any law necessary for police regulation, but not TO
destroy or impair lawful business, or prohibit n
man from pursuing any lawful avocation. But to
determine whether Congress had delegated to the
Corporation the power to pass the act in question,
consider the effect of such a law 1t would amount
to prohibition. Has the Corporation the right to
prohibit tavern-keepng, or any other lawful bust
ness?
The Corporation has no rights which are not
delegated in express terms or by necessary and in
evitable implication. To determine what those
powers are, the language Of the charter must be
strictly construed. Is that power given in express
termsy No. Is it given by necessary implication
No. On the contrary, by necessary implication,
withheld, certain things, to wit: tipping houses
&c, being enumerated, which the Corporation has
the power to prohibit-an certain other things to
wit: tayerns, &C., being enumerated, which the
Corporation has the power to regulate. Why are
tipping houses, bawdy houses, &C., the subjects of
prohibitionp Because they are the subjects of fel-
ony and misdemeanor Why are taverns not the
subject Of prohibitions Because the business of
tavern keeping is lawful business. Why has the
Corporation the power to regulate tavern keeping?
Because it is lawful business very liable to abuse.
There is distinction made in the charter between
prohibition and regulation.
Tipping houses are the subjects of prohibition,
and taverns are the subjects of regulation. To
prohibit tavern keepers from selling liquor in any
quantities to their customers is to impair the pro-
fits of their business, or in the proper and legal
sense Of the term to prohibit their business. Mr..
G. then alluded to the argument employed by Mr..
Cox, that tavern keepers do not barter and sell
liquor to their customers in the legal sense Of those
terms but aots it under the general privilege
ferred by their license. Mr.. G. then commented
with great warmth and severity upon the bad faith
of the Corporation in advertising tavern keepers to
get their licenses, pocketng their money, and then
restraining and prohibiting them in the exercise of
their business-he denounced it as an "eIpost
facto lap' to all intents and purposes He then
read the law, and cOntended that ii it applied to
tavern keepers it applied equally to doctors, apoth-
ecaries, and all who sold liquor in quantities less
than a pint under any circumstances. That the
law was therefore absurd-and there being no cx-
press power in the charter to the Corporation to
pass such an act--it was not right to infer the
power to pass an absurd law.
Mr.. Bradley replied to the arguments Of Messrs
Coke and Carlisle contending, in the course of his
remarks, that there can be an inn or hotel with
out liquor. He asked whether at the North,
there are not temperance hotels, which do not vend
intoxicating drinks? A tavern keeper Is man
who receives and cntcrtains guests, and who
takes OF their cattle, and who may be licensed
to cell liquors. Without license he cannot do so.
He denied that an inn-kceper is bound to fur
nish guests with one drop even of liquor Mt their
meals. There is not tavern north or west of the
Potomac where liquor is set on the table as part
Of their meals. 1t is tipplng-house in a tavern
that may be created. If man is in an inn he
took it for granted that the guest is entitled to
room. fla man is sick and buys pint of liquor
it is cheap medicine If it cures him. II he is tired
the landlord can give him liquor or, if the wealth
err is cold and the fire docs not cheer him. But Is
the guest any more entitled to buy liquor than q
man living in the city, If a citizen cannot pur-
chase IL, why should guestY If the laborng man
cannot get liquor why should the traveller have an
advantage over himy He would ask the court to
show him the law which requires liquor to be fur
nished to guests. The vending Of intoxicating Ii
quors has been the subject of police regulation.
Tbav bav a hoan fraafad a po;ao, Whntbar tbfa
was just or not, was another question.
After arguing for more than three hours, he
summed up by saying that Congress can grant
power to the Corporation to license and regulate
the sale Of spirituous liquors; and that they can
limit the sale to quantities not less than pint !;
and this has been done for fifty years in the case
of retailers He maintained, in addition, that power
is given to license, tax, and regulate taverns and
ordinaries, and to restrain or prohibit tipping
shops; and, therefore, they can restrain taverns
from becoming tipping houses They have the
power, under police regulations, to restrain the
sale of liquors in quantities. not less than pint.
He had endeavored, he said, to show that by the
same charter, taverns could be limitedtu not less
than that quantity In word the Corporation
has just as much power to restrain tavcrns as to
suppress tipping houses. The power in this law
rests on the express grant Of the charter. IL he
erred in all this, inasmuch az, from time immemo-
r1h, tnc SellnB Vi mWAlchtiiB Hquofb has Deen the
subject of regulation, the Corporation having the
power to regulate taverns, has the power to say
that they shall not sell less liquor than pint. Reg
ulation is not prohibition; II is not restraining but
regulating trade. ftsR
Mr.. Carlisle briefly replied stating confidently
and positively that in all the previous legislation Of
the Corporation, there has never been word said
about authorizing tavern-keepers 10 sell less than
pint. The word tavern itself carried with it
the right to sell liquors in quantities less than
pint. Take away the principal part Of mans
business and you take away all Of it, for he must
fail
Mr.. Bradley briefly responded.
The argument here ended; but the court has re-
served its decision.
NATIONAL GUARD.-This famous corps give their
second annual ball at jackson Hall tonight, and
we prophecy gala time. This corps gave the best
ball Of the season last year. and We know the "lus
tire Of their shield will not be dimmed in their
effort tonight. ~