Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-12-03
Eofal anA gtrsunaI.

Circuit C0urt.--The Liquor Question:
The argument In the case Of Charles Werner
againsi the Corporation Of Washington was con-
linued yesterday.
The case came up we repeat, on an appeal
from the Judgment Of a Police Magistrate, who
fined the appellant twenty dollars for an alleged
violation Of the law TO suppress tipping houses,
and to prohibit the sale OF intoxicating liquors in
quantities less than pint He claimed that his
license to keep tavern gave him the privilege to
sell liquors by g the small"
Mr.. Darlington (who appeared yesterday in ad-
dition to Messrs Coke and Carlisle for the appel
lant) addressed the court for more than hour,
making the following points Congress has fright
to delegate power 10 pass an act in restraint Of
trade to impair the profits of lawful business,
prohibit the exercise of lawful business; ed. If
Congress has that right, il has not, either in ex-
press terms, or by implication, delegated i. TO the
Corporation; that atavernkeepers license com
prehends the right 10 furnish both meat and drink,
and that an act which Restraints him from furnish
ing either amounts 10 prohibition; that the powers
of the corporation are strictly defined 70 prohibit
certain things which are enumerated, and regu-
late certain other things which are enumerated
and that taverns mentioned in the latter class;
that the law is general, and therefore void; that
the law is absurd; and, therefore, the power TO
make il not being given 10 the corporation in ex-
press terms could not be said 10 exist by implica
ton; that the corporation acted in bad faith by.
notifying tavern-kcepers 10 get their licenses,
pocketng their money, and then passing an act
restraining and prohibiting them in the exercise
of right which they had purchased under the be-
lief that il would be protected and not prohibited
by the corporation.
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
without liquor He asked whether, at the North
there are not temperance hotels, which do not
vend intoxicating drinks A tavern-keeper is a
man who receives and entertains guests, and who
takes care of their cattle and who may be licensed
TO sell liquors. Without license, he cannot do so.
He denied that an inn-keeper is bound 10 furnish
guests with one drop even ofliquor at their meals.
There is not tavern north or west OF the Poto-
mac where liquor is set on the table as part OF
the meals. II is a tipping house in tavern that
may be created. If man is in an inn, he took i
for granted that the guest is entitled 10 room. Ii
man is sick and buys pint Of liquor, il is cheap
medicine If il cures him. If he is tired, the land
lord can give him liquor; or, il the weather is
cold and the FIRE does not cheer him. But Is the
guest any more entitled to buy liquor than q man
living in the city? If citizen cannot purchaseit,
why should guest? If the laboring man cannot
get liquor, why should the traveller have an adj
vantage over .him2 He would ask the court to
show him the law which requires liquor to be
furnished 10 guests. The vending Of intoxicating
LIQUORS has been the subject of police regulation
They have been treated as poison. Whether
this was just or not, was another question.
Affer arguing TOR more than three hours, he
summed up by saying that Congress can grant
power 10 the Corporation 10 license and regulate
the sale of spirfuous 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, tav-
ems and ordinaries, and 10 restrain or prohibit
tipping shops; and therefore they can restrain
taverns from becoming tipping houses. They
have the power, under police regulations, TO re-
strain the sale of liquors in quantities not less
than pint. He had endeavored, he said, 10 show
that, by the same charter, taverns could be
limited 10 not less than that quantity. In word,
the Corporation has just as much powerto restrain
taverns as 10 suppress tipping houses. The
power in this law rests on the express grant OF the
charter II he erred in all this inasmuch as, from
time immemoral, the selling of Intoxicating
liquors has been the subject Of regulation, the
Corporation having the power 10 regulate taverns
has the power 10 say thsf they shall not sell less
liquor than pint. Regulation is not prohibition;
il Is not restraining but regulating trade.
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-kcepers 10 sell less
than a pint. The word tavern" itself carried
with Il the right TO sell liquors in quantities less
than pint. Take away the principal part Of
mans business, and you take away ell Off, for he
must fail.
Mr. Bradley briefly responded.
The argument here ended; but the court has
reserved its decision.