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

porstion or Washington, noticed In our issue OF
Friday, as under the consideration Of the Circuit
Court was continued on Saturday. The following
abstract OF the remarks of the speakers In the
on Friday We take from the Sentinel Of Saturday
morning; aAf
Mr. Bradley, addressing the court said that the
case which was now brought TO their consideration
rose under the late legislation of the Corporation
OF Washington. The parties were Gharles Werner
against the Corporation of Washington.
He read the several laws heretofore passed with
reference 70 the regulation of tavens and the acts
relating to sprtuous liquors. including that for the
suppression OF tipping houses and the prohibition
Of the sale OF the Intoxicating liquids in quantities
less than pint On the first Monday of Novem-
Der, Charles Werner obtained what Is commonly
called tavern license, and ON the seventh was
fined twenty dollars for keeping open his bar and
selling liquors in quantities less than pint, con-
trary 20 the Corporation statute.
the frst question which arose was, Has Con-
gress the power to pass such law as this to pro-
hibt the sale Of intoxicating drinks in quantities
less than pint and to declare what are tipping
houses and, further TO delegate the power to in
ferior ministers, created in this District He main
tanned the Affirmative, insisting that 1t is the right
and the duty ofthe sovereign to pass such laws as
may be necessary TO protect society from ills, whe-
ther arising from bad arrangements with regard TO
health or property; that, in broad terms, it is a
police regulation II is the essential attribute Of
soveregnty--one Of the great attributes of gov
ernment for the prevention of as well as the rem
edy for, ills. This power has always existed. 1t
existed In Maryland, and, by the deed of cesson,
has been transferred to the general government.
Congress, having legislative power over the peo-
pie OF this District, can, therefore, empower the
officers Of this Corporation to carry out those gen
In nft hso
ferred to various decisions Of the Supreme Court
OF the United States, to the effect TINT every State
may regulate its own internal traffic for the we'll
being OF the people, and to guard their health and
morals. As to how far this power may be abused,
is another question.
His next proposition was, that Congress has the
right TO delegate the power, and has delegated it
TO the Corporation Of Washington. In support Of
this he referred to the charter Of 1920 and to that
OF lS4S, TO show the power of the Corporation to
pass the liquor act now in question.
lie insisted that the Corporation has absolute
power-lst. TO restrain and prohibit tipping
houses; I'd. Power to regulate taverns and 3D.
The general power over licenses for the sale of
spirituous liquors, and, whether with or without H.
cense, to prohibit it, AS to taverns, he did not
say that the keepers cannot furnish drink with
meals. That may be charged as a part Of the
board. However, there may be tipping houses ut
in different words, where there is drinking to ex-
cess. The power Of regulating taverns does not
amount to prohibition, but to prevent tipping
houses. II he was right in those views, the Cor
poration was entitled to judgment against the ap-
pellant.
Mr.. Carlisle said this question was one Of great
interest. In the first place, the class of persons,
Of whom this applicant was one, are numerous in
w ashmgton. There are others engaged in the
liquor business, and with them this is question Of
life and death. Then, there are many people who
do feel disposed when they are thirsty to drink
pint, The act was misnamed It ought to be
entitled an act to compel a man to drink pint
OF brandy or ale !" Laughter The question too,
was interesting to those who are exceedingly in
temperate on the question OF temperance and Of
interest to lawyers, it being nice question.
Ever since the foundation of Washington, liquor
selling has been lawful trade. 1t has not only
been promoted and encouraged, but the arms Of
the Corporation have been opened wide to receive
all tavernkeepcrs, and to take from each sixty dol
lars. All OF sudden, under some sort of pressure
and with short notice. of less than thirty days. it
Is now sought to suppress them; and when their
proprietors have made provision for the winter for
the accommodation Of their guests The Corpora
ton has passed two ordinances to break up this
great bnsiness-great on account of the number
of persons interested in it, and the amount of cap
ital invested. The result would be that those who
have laid In their stock would be unable to meet
the demands made upon them.
The warrant charged that Charles Werner, being
the keeper of q tavern, in the Fourth Ward, did
sell and barter rum, brandy, gin, whiskey, mixed
or unmixed, in quantities less than pint. The
charge is not that he sold liquor without license or
that he was the keeper of tippling-housc or bar
but that simply, being tavern-keeper, he sold
liquor to somebody in a quantity less than a pint.
The question was; What Is meant by tavern
keeper A man must satisfy the Corporation that
he Is, in substance, an innkeeper and common
victualler. He must show that he has certain &C
commodationa for man and horse. The law specif-
cally points out what man must have and do be-
fore q license can be issued
As to what tavern means, they had the deri-
walton of the word from the Latin: tabcrna--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, tavern means where
wine Is sold and drank on the premises therefore,
license to keep tavern carries with 1t the Ii.
cense to sell liquor. In other words, 1t Is an inn
l want TO know what our common fathers would
have said II they had been told that tavern was
place where they could get something to eat,
but not TO drink. The legitimate meaning Of tav-
en-keeping Is inn-keeping.n
The appellant in this case Is in the exercise of
lawful occupation or trade; lawful at the common
law lawful by all former Legislation, and involving
the dispensing or sale Of liquors by the small You
may make some other trade of Il by altering the
mans occupation; and If you take away the prin-
cipal part Of the business, the other must fail He
contended that ifthis by Jaw prohibits the man from
selling in quantities less than pint II is in restraint
Of a lawful trade He did not think II necessary to
argue the abstract question The eyes of the law
recognise Il lawful trade, as well as any other
He 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 tayerns Is
made matter Of specific grant and taverns, in
the charter is classified with all other legal busi.
ness. The Corporation can only provide for H.
censing and regulating tayerns MS they can license
and regulate auctioneers, hawkers and pedcrs, &c.
1t Is not simply power given to license, tar, and
regulate, but to provide for licensing and taxing.
He referred to various authorities to show that
the number of taverns may be restricted, when
they are too numerous; but IL the law restricts
trade, 1t is void. His plain Interpretation of the
charter was, that the Corporations power to regu-
late taverns Is not greater than that to regulate
auctioneers, hackney coaches, pawnbrokers, and
hawkers and pedlers; whereas, the law, under