The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1879-11-04

cases OF violation OF the Sunday liquor law
IL invested 10 the Police Court, and believ
ling that the adoption Of the propose,
amen dment wonld be Injurious TO the bes
Interests OF the city, the undersigned;
minority OF the committee. beg leave re
spectfutiy TO offer the following report:
!, The question under. confederation is sim
ply who shall impose the penalty for. q VIC
lation- OF the law. Under our present 1awt
current jurisdiction. 1t is proposed to sc
modify, the ordinance, as to take the iu.
risdlction from the Hastings and vest IT. in
the Police Court. In our opinion this would
produce most unfortunate results. G.s,itt.s q
| The agitation for the removal OF iurisdie.
ton was not begun until the Judge of the
Hastings Court had made his court OBJ
noxious to the violators OF the law by the
| imposition OF heavy penalties. It was to
shield infractors OF the law from punish
ment and to provide an easy way for its vio-
! luton that this agitation was begun and has
continued. II this be not the object sought
to be attained, why should those interested
take SO much trouble to secure exclusive
jurisdiction for the Police Court? II the
saloon-keepers OF the city are sincere in
their expressions OF purpose TO observe the
law, why should the question Of who shall
impose its penalties be to them a matter OF
the slightest concern? for II they never vio-
iate the law they will never become liable
to punishment, and so the question OF who
shall administer it can have for them no
practical interest. The facts warrant the
conclusion that the bar-keepers OF the city
do not stand in fear oil. the Police Court,
and that not until the Judge OF the Hust-
ings Court took the matterin hand was the
Sunday liquor law ever generally respected.
TO sustain this assertionwe need only
mention that during the four years begin-
ming with April, 1874, and ending Maroh
81, 1873, the number OF persons Gned In the
Police Court was II. OF this number G6
were fined $40, and five were fined $50,
making an aggregate of S760 for the four
years. During the short perJd Of ten
months the number Of persons convicted
in the Hustings Court was only nine, and
yet the fines amounted 10 nine hundred and
Seventy dollars. %o
AS we have just stated, during the four
years mentioned it was the custom or the
Police Justice in nearly every instance to
impose the smallest penalty allowed by the
law. We claim that this did not tend to
restrain the bar. keepers from further viola
tions OF the law, and in support OF this posi-
tion we need simply mention that one dealer
was found guilty by the Police Justice
three times in q period OF less than two
years, and each time was tined only the
minimum amount of $40. Another was
convicted t,1ice within thirtyfUe days. and
was fined only ten dollars for each offence,
although the last was the fourth time he
bad been tried and convicted IN this court
for selling liquor on Sunday. And still an
oIt osrp n Ice {ba.on
aoeeks, and each time was punished with the
smallest fine; and so with others who were
arraigned and convicted more than once for
violation Of the Sunday liquor law.
We do not desire to be understood as inn
pugning the motives of the Police Justice.
In the exercise of his authority be bad the
right to impose the least or the greatest Pc
naity. It was for him to decide as to the
gravity OF the offence and to affiX the Pc
nalty but in support OF our claim that the
jurisdiction should be allowed to remain in
the Hastings Court, we need only to refer
you to the above facts to show most conclu-
sively that the law Vas not respected until
the judge OF the Hastings Court, by the in
Fiction of heavy penalties, secured for it q
proper observance.
In advocacy OF the proposed amendment,
it is urged that the money realized from
fines now paid to the State would then 60
into the city treasury, and so become
source OF revenue.
The total amount OF fines imposed by the
Police Justice in four years aggregated only
S760, or an average Of 800 year. We are
unwilling to believe that in discussing q
question that so seriously affects the highest
interests OF the community any citizen, for
SO pitiful sum as $3.50 u year, would be
willing to jeopardize the peace and good
order of the city; but, lest This argument
should have some weight, we hazard nothiEs
in saying that 1t is capable or demonstration
that the expense incurred by the city for the
arrest and conviction OF violators OF the
Sunday liquor law, and especially for the
arrest and detention OF persons made dlsor-
derly and dangerous by reason Of liquor
purchased on Sunday, would more than
equal the revenue likely to be derived from
that source. ,-.-.. ...,. ,....... .. ....H
Another reason for the change upon
which great stress is laid is that under the
present laws, which give Jurisdiction to
both the Hastings and Police Courts. any
person may be fined twice for the same
offence. AS the petitioners asking for this
amendment declare their purpose OF faith
| fully observing the law, and as the liquor
| dealers, through their Association, and
many individually, have assured members
| Of the Council that it is the intention OF all
bar-keepers to hereafter respect the law,
we do not see that this objection can huve
any weight, for il no one violates the law
no one will be punished; and il any dealer
should at any time be found guilty, the
other dealers, having pledged themselves to
the support OF the law, would be interested
in having such dealer punished to the full
est extent OF the lsw. ,s,,,..... .,.- ~. .s-
The third reason why the law should be
modified, and which is the last we shall no.
| tice, is the one that relates to the summon
! ing OF citizens to testify before the gran q
| Jury as to their knowledge OF violations OF
| the Sunday hquor law. 1t is declared "to
| be due to many of our citizens. as respect
able as any others, that they shall not be
liable to be summoned rs involuntary in
! formers against themselves and Others be-
fore the grand Jury or the Hastings Court, /" .
am also that the adoption Of this amend
ment .would relieve the State OF the bur-
then OF incurring large expenses in sum-
moning witnesses before the grand ana
pelit juries and the trial sf such cases, ana
| the citizens OF the unpleasant duty and an
noyance OF attending court and neglect1ng
their own business"
To this we would reply that the right to
summon citizens before the grand jury or
the Hastings Court is not confined to cases
affecting the Sunday liquor law, but as we'll
tn ali other violations Of law, and would not
be affected by any modihcatlon the Guy
Council might make in this or any otner
ordinance. Besides, no good citizen ought
L hi nt1 fn a n