Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1882-06-15
THE SUNDAY LIQUOR LAW.

oe ~ ~ uhe'luc, vi tno corporation
Court, before whom the motion made bv tho
Commonwealth Attorney to revoke the IL
censes of parties convicted of violating the
Sunday law was argued Wednesday and
yesterday by S. G.. Brent and A. w. Arm
strong for the prosecution, and Edmund
Burke for the defence, to-day rendered his
decision, overruling the motion, as follows:
Commonwealth
vs.
Jacob Bohraus
Same oplliioh vi lHe eoull.
VS..
Gaines & Kraft.
The defendants OH the 1st day of May,
1882, were duly licensed by this Court to
trailic in wines, liquors, &C., III the city of
Alexandria until April 30th, 1888. The
Attorney for the Commonwealth after due
notice moves the Court to revoke said
licenses for the reason assigned that the de-
PENDANTS are not fit persons to have said
licenses, and that their places Of business
are mot suitable and convenient" because
they have kept open bar rooms and sold
liquors OH Sunday in defiance of the ordi-
nance of the Commonwealth prohibiting it,
The ottense charged is grave and serious
one Not only has the law passed to
secure proper observance of the Sabbath
been deliberately violated but the trust
confided in the applicants, when the Court
at the May term granted the license, be-
lieving good faith would be observed and
the laws respected, been betrayed, and the
fact also established, that the offending
parties refrain from the open and defiant
violation of the law, not because it is the
law and should be respected but solely be-
cause Of the penalty attached. The pro-
priety Of this law, or the expediency Of
Sunday laws in general, the Court is not
called TO pass upon, nor yet to say, whether
sobriety can best be secured by the strong
hand Of the law or should be left to the
gentler and yet stronger influence of moral
suasion and the Divine law. This the legs-
lator must determine; it is the simple duty
tcrprct, and sec faithfully enforced the law
us it is, whether good or bad.
No proof Of the violation of the law is
necessary here for the parties admit it, so
the credibility of witnesses is not vital
point in dispute, and we need not therefore
pause to consider how far or to what extent
witnesses who worm themselves into the
confidence Of others but to betray them, are
to be believed. Those who believe that it is
proper ''to do evil, that good may come"
may possibly with propriety practice it
but this matter OF giving information and
playing the detective, is to some extent, ut
least, a question of taste to be determined
by each man for himself; many doubtless
are influenced by sense Of duty, and where
such is the tact-and this informing upon
others is not pure ''labor of love'-some
credit should be given for the discharge of
what must be most offensive duty, promp-
ted alone, as in this case, by dsinterested
philanthrophy and love for the human
family
In the Mayors court, before an intelligent,
determined official, who is prompt in the
enforcement of the laws, as he should be, all
the facts in connection with these several
offences against the Sunday law, were
doubtless fully disclosed and after mature
consideration, the topeSt penalty the law
imposes, ten dollars, was declared to be q
sufficient punishment and warning to cor
rect the evil; or otherwise heavier penalty
would have been certainty imposed; and
now this court is invoked to 60 one step
further and exercise a prcrogative claimed
for it, and revoke the license heretofore
granted, and as it is urged, forfeited by mis-
conduct.
1t is very certain, if the term for which
the license has been granted had expired
and parties who had been convicted, or in
deed were gravely suspected upon good
grounds, of having violated the law, were
before the Court asking for q renewal the
application would be promptly rejected not
as additional punishment for specific Of
fence, that has been passed upon and the
penalty for which has been paid, but be-
toI boI hno
abused, and because parties who have thus
offended, or who are not above suspicion,
are not "fit persons" to be trusted with this
dangerous traffic.
The Court is glad to know that there are
some mitigating circumstance in these cases,
and to be able to indulge the hope, that this
first otfense that has come to its knowledge
of the kind will be the last. For these reasons
and because of the general good character
heretofore sustained by the parties as quiet,
sober, lawabiding citizens, the motion to
revoke the license is overruled.
Reference has been made to the decision
Of the Court Of Appeals in q somewhat SINH
lar case confirming the decision of the
learned Judge ofthe City Court of Richmond
who in the exercise Of his ''discretion" re-
voked the license of one Davis who admit
ted, in violation of a city ordinance and of
the state law, having kept an open house on
Sunday, and it is claimed that the decision
there should determine the action of the
Court here. 1t is sufficient answer to say.
if this be so, then the "discretion" the law
gives, and the Court Of Appeals conceeds to
the Court granting licenses to revoke them,
is ettectually destroyed. The Court of APP
pcals in its decision ofthe case as, reported
in the Law Journal for May, quotes the act
in relation to the power of the Court to re-
woke licenses to be found in the session Acts
Of '74-'75 as the basis of the authority of the
Court to exercise this prerogativc ; but the
act of 1874, to be found also re-cnactcd and
in the criminal Code, acts IT'S, inhibiting
the sale of liquors between the hours of y
O'Clock Saturday night and sunrise Monday
morning, has been amended in two impor-
tant particulars by the later act of lS79-'SO.
The old act in express terms conferred
discretionary power upon the Court to re-
woke licenses Of persons convicted under its
provisions. The later and amendatory act
comprises no such discretionary pow
er. 1t is obvious the Legislature, for some
reason took away the power of the
Court to revoke the license upon trial and con.
viction before it under the general laws in force