The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1882-04-08

The interest recently awakened In the
Sundav-law question makes II I'm order to
present brief review Of the history OF this
agitation in our city.
In the early part vi 1879 a resolution was
introduced in the Common Council To so
amend our city ordinances as to give ex-
elusive Jurisdiction to the Police Court OF
all cases involving violation OF the law
prohibiting the sale Of liquor on the Sab
bath day. Under the then existing laws
the Hastings and Police Courts claimed
concurrent Jurisdiction. II was argued by
the friends OF the liquor-dealers that IL was
unfair to give both the Hastings and Po-
lice Courts Jurisdiction, as any person
might be fined twice for the same offence !;
and that il the Police Court alone had iu-
risdiction the fines collected would go into
the city treasury, and thus become source
OF revenue to the city.
On the other hand, il was urged by those
who opposed any change that the agita-
ton for the removal Of jurisdiction was
not begun until the Judge OF the Hastings
Court had made his court obnoxious by the
imposition OF heavy penalties. and that tins
agitation was begun TO shield infractors Of
the law from punishment and to provide an
easy way for its violation; that rs to two
courts having jurisdiction, il nobody vio-
lated the law nobody would be punished; !;
and that As to the point that il the Police
Court had jurisdiction the fines collected
would 90 into the city treasury, it was
stated that the fines imposed by the Police
Justice for the four preceding years had
averaged only $3.50 year, and that it could
be easily demonstrated that the expenses
incurred by the city for the arrest and con-
viction OF violators OF the Sunday liquor
law, and especially for the arrest and de-
tention OF persons made disordery by the
use OF liquor purchased on Sunday, would
more than equakthe revenue likely to be
derived from that source.
The question was warmly discussed in
the two branches Of the City Council, and
at their meetings in June, 1879, an ordi-
nance was passed, the effect OF which was
to give exclusive jurisdiction to the Judge
OF the Hastings Court. This ordinance
was vetoed by Mayor Darlington, who gave
as reasons that the State had put it in the
power OF the city authorities to control this
whole matter, but that it was not accom-
plished by this ordinance, and that he
thought the Police Justice should have eX-
elusive control, because the fines collected
in his court would 90 into the city treasury.
Late in the fall OF the same year the mat
ter was again before the City Council, but
an ordinance TO give the Police Justice eX-
elusive jurisdiction was defeated by tie
vote in the Board OF Aldermen.
The liquor-dealers having failed to get
from the Council the desired legislation,
appealed to the Legislature. At meeting
OF citizens held in January, 1880, Mr.. j. I.
Ellyson and Major Robert Stiles were re-
quested to appear before the committees OF
the Legislature and oppose any change in
the laws, and in the month following mass
meeting at Mozart Hall was addressed by
Right Reverend Bishop Keane, Hon. j. l..
NJ. Curry, and Judge Robert Ould in advo-
cacy of the same policy. The Legislature,
however, amended the law, and the ques-
ton was no further agitated until recently
revived by the action OF the German Citi-
zens' Association.