Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1884-01-23

Will ii Help the Sale OF Intoxicating
Liquors!
swER OF THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONERS


The District Commissioners have sent the follow
Ing communication to the Senate District Com
mittee:
January e2d.
Hon" Nelson ". AId,'ich, Chairman Suo-Senate
COMMITTEE:
SENATOR: The idea being entertained IN some
quarters hat The new license bill IS No 1880
talS provisions that Will relax somewhat the pres
emf restrictions upon the sale OF intoxicating
liquors at wholesale or at retail, the following re-
view Oh such provisions affect that traffic are
committee.
Sec. 2 lines - to 2i provide that
"Iceflse=may be TT nsferreI persons to continue
the same business in the place. remove
Assessor ~
These words are copied from the present law
without change. and have been applied only to Sc
curing 10 the proprietor OF a licensed barrOnra the
privilege OF investing his transferee with the
ownership OF the sum or money not eE-
hausted by the license at the time OF the transfer
the tFansferee is obliged. before he can continue
the business under The unexp1red license to pro-
cure anew the signatures OF the majority of resi-
Dents and proper;yhoders on the squares where the
business j. conducted, ''under the same regula-
tons las The original license"
Again. license having been granted. and the
licensed party desiring sstO remove the place OF
business he IS required to procure the permission
OF thH al Dnl1y or property holders and residents
to the CONDUIT OF his business at his new-chosen
locality. under the same regulations as the
The present law governing the wholesale uouor
tralfir rSstto As follows:
D;a!eS in li.el al ferIen-ed liquors. wines and
G2ra ay anray ten dollars for T Zach THOUSAND
shall lie 20 less sum IN II twenty five dollars nd
aS to amy ' 5lt Sc S fs4t nn iI anos
wines. or cordias in less gu .ntities than pint
Very few wholesale dealers have ever paid more
than the minimum sum OF 50. In Very many cases
the difference between the cost OF q Wholesale and
OF q ret Ill license Is known 10 have caused the
Ii" retail ts-tlfi, ac new bill fixes the rate for
wholesale at $40 AMI for retail at $50. and pre-
vents see section 3 The drinking of liquor in any
quantity (Which the present law does noD upon the
premises. while an amendment TO section IL. which
The Commissioners have already suggested 10 your
csn,nittee. as follows: "a single sale OF such
lJcDIS in quantities less than Il pint. or TO be
drunk on the PREMISES" shall constitute the
premises a bar-room, and subject the wholesale
dealer 20 the license. fines and penalties for con-
Quoting retail oar-rOom.
The selling OF liquor AT retail is controlled by sec
ton II of the bill AT present ii is required to prove
two distinct sales OF liquor to bring The vendor
Withn reach OF the law. This proof has 70 be actu-
ally made by the authorities offered In the Police
Court. and again offered in the Criminal Court upon
appel, and almost generally year and more after
the alleged O1Iense The difficulty Of this prCce-
dure has been virtual immunity TO dealers who
sold without license, and the cOnrraband retailing
liquor In the District is largely due TO that fact
IL is supposed that lines TO II OF section II, read
Ing as follows:
and the possession of malt distilled ferr1ented or
any Intoxicating liquors with the app arc,s
TO: Eyns on tn business OF Distressing of the same.
ballroom within the meaning OF this act"
with fine amendment before suggested by add
Ing the following words after s.>old' in the ninth
line: ''Or single Sale or such liquors In quantities
less than punt, or 10 be drunk on the PREMISES
will sufficiently protect against Illicit selling 1t
being possible 10 FIX the character OF tie establish
ment or the contraventon or the law either by the
fact Of having III possession The appliances to carry
on tae business OF selling liquors by RETAIL or by
Single sale. or both.
For the last two license years the Commissioners
have unier the discretion accorded to them by the
present law, that no license should be Issued until
approved by them, refused almost invariably to
license Il DaI-room within four hundred feet OF a
public ohOol house owned by the District. They
now suggest that Congress shall substitute t:iis
regulation OF the Commissioners by legal proyi-
Sion Other changes from the present law looking
TO the more eftctual control OF the business on
sunday and otherwise, are made in section H. and
the Judge OF the Police Court, before whom such Of
lenses are originally brought to trial. endorses the
measure at large by saying that 'he finds il very
laws
By the present license law an applicant for
bar-room license must obtain the written permits
sion OF a majority OF property holders and residents
IN the Vicinity. defined by law. to establish MS
buSneSS-and upon the annual renewal OF his
license he must. eacn and every year, have their
written permission renewed. This requirement. fl
has been represented to the commissioners and
they believe tTllt hiully. leads to system Of black
mailing by residents ia localities who require q
compensation ICr tileir signatures in either money
or kinh. while many Otliers, through caprice or
giving peTIEiS,icn.ait hOugh the establishment may
Ge - reputable as others.and be as little extensively
conducted as such business generally IS. Section
II changes The present law from imperative an
Duai option OF the locality to option us TO grant
ing license. which can be exercised at will every
yearly q legal majority II they so desire. In other
words, the local option, now submitted Ivy law
every year. can be exercised by majority any
yer The apprehension that families moving Into
localities where bar-roons are licensed would DE
deprived any year OF their right to object is ground
less he annual local option this year has been
.SliI m
hooters ana Residents.
This Is about the proportion OF rerlsals for seye-
raj years back. and goes TO show that neiCnbOr-
moods change but little or that ESTABLISHING hts
are not objected 10 in many Cases. The examine
ten as TO tie genu1ntLeSS OF the assent Of the
reuiSite property holiers and residents employs
nearly te WiiO.e time OF the entire police force Tor
nearly a month each year. Is expensive and yeXa-
tioui. and doc, Eot, except 10 very limited extent
AZ ct the business. Taking last year as AN ey,
ample, II required the Examination OF SIS cases
with prob by 5000 signers 10 discover that In p
Gases, 2 person, WOult. not sign. IL would seem
~ b. more just. certainly less yeXatious and eX-
pensive. I" rI IRE The smaller number To express
their dissent. provided by the bill. OF the q
rejected this Year II bar rooms failed obtain the
requisite assent ~ continue the business and these
were the sole result Of annual local option and no
DOUBT The StIGe showing would be made under the
new bill
The commissioners have addressed themselves to
practicable control OF the liquor traffic In The Dis
lri't OF Columbia Their experience with the con-
duet of the business has led them to recommend
the provisions relating TO it contained I'm Senate
Iii No $50 Yet, II other provisions can De S,tg-
gt>ted that would more efIcctualy guard against
The vice OF 1ntcmpeTance far as IL finds Opnor-
trii.ty here. they would most cheerlully adopt
THEM where they can be practically applied.
IEr commissioners cannot close THIS reference To
the subject without expressing their regret that
agitation should have led in sCme Quarters TO an
lsirrn!On upon the SobFiety OF the people OF the
District N Columbia. II affords them great pleasure
10 say That The police records i'll that respect COM
pare qui'e iivorably with any other city In the
United states
Very respectfully yours &C.,
j. b. EDMONDs,
J. Il WEST,
e. j. LYDECKER Major OF Engineers,
commissioners 1f u nfC