Washington sentinel. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1853-1855, 1854-11-01
Eotal anO 9srsunal.

Liquor Pr0hibiti0n.-It is well known that
on the 9th OF October, the city councils passed
law to "prohibit tipping houses and TO suppress
the sale by the smaHof spiriiuous and intoxicating
liquors" which was succeeded by one affecting
the sellers of the alcoholic liquids in Quantities o.
pint and upward, laying an additional lax and
not allowing them to be drunk on the premises
where sold.
Against the first named law, the proprietors OF
the FIVE hotels petitoned the councils, employing
distinguished lawyer ofthis city TO draw up their
paper and conduct their cause. The result was,
long report from the committee of police in the
board of aldermen in favor of the petitioners and
bill TO regulate taverns and ordinaries and to
prohibit tipping houses; fixing the license TO keep
a tavern Tor hotel in which there are forty beds
or more in which guests or boarders may be ac-
commodated, at $500 where there are less than
that number of beds, $50; and for a license TO
keep any other tavern or ordinary, $l2o.
This BILL after being discussed for two nights,
was on Monday passed by the board OF aldermen
yeas, Messrs. Dove, Reed, Bayly, Pepper, Fitz.
patrick, Houston, and Johnson--7 Nays, Messrs.
Borrows, Clark, Marks and Person..
The board Of common council, however, rejected
the bill, by vote Of six against thirteen. Yeas
Messrs. Kelley, C. A. Davis, Plant, Duncanson,
Killmon and Smith. Nays-Messrs. Newman,
Barr, Dom, Walker, Ball, Clements, Busey,
McCauley, Cross, Ruff, Stewart hamburger, and
Gill.
In the board of aldermen, Messrs. Evans, Ma
gruder and Hill, and in the other board, Messrs.
A. Med. Davis and Joseph W. Davis, were abb
sent
The tavern and ordinary keepers had had their
secret meetings. and presented their petitions
complaining of the ani-tipplng legislation, but
all TO no purpose; nor did the presence of al least
fifty OF them in the chambers, on Monday night
have any effect on the determination of the city
fathers. The common councilmen sternly set
their faces against any modification whatever Of
the stringent law, the cause ofthe loud complaint
of the particularly interested parties.
1t is almost unnecessary to say there were ex-
citing times in both boards, the members Of the
councils indulging in earnest debates on this in
terestng subject. The mere name of liquor"
seemed TO inspire the orators when dscoursing
on the distracting theme.
It is not often that the Fathers have such large
anditories as they had last Monday night.
In the lower Board Mr.. Charles A. Davis,
moved by what he considered to be sense Of
duty, offered joint resolution, allowing the keep
ers of taverns, ordinaries, and tippling-shops
three months in which TO close up their affairs,
and requiring them 70 take an oath 10 this effect
Debate followed, when the further consideration
of the bill was indefinitely postponed, BY vote of
thirteen against sx--Yeas, Messrs. Newman, Barr,
Dom, Walker. Duncanson, Ball, Clements, Busey,
McCauley, Cross, Ruff, Bamberger, and Gill;
Nays, Messrs. Kelly, c. A. Davis, Plant, Kilmon,
Stewart, and Smith.
So, on and after Monday next, the law TO "pro-
hibit tipping houses and 10 suppress the sale by
ihe small Of spiriluous and intoxicating liquors
will go into effect. But this does not argue, by
any means, that drinking will be suppressed.
Liquor can be purchased by the pint, but not
drunk on the premises where ii shall be sold
The lovers of the fluid can take their shippers"
and slugs" elsewhere. However, we shall not
now speculate on this subject, but will await fur
Their developments as to the practical working OF
The statute in question.