Evening capital. (Annapolis, Md.) 1884-1910, 1886-03-23
LOCAL OPTION III ANNE ARUN.
DEL COUNTY.
who . RsspOnsibIe for lhe clubs ]

Mr.. EDITOR PLEASE allow me
space enough 10 your valuable paper
to discuss one point in connection
with Local Option in Anne Arundel
county. Without touching at present
the question whether the use and saIe
OF intoxicating liquors ID crime or
dangerous practice, or the other ques-
ton whether prohibition is question
Of morality orpubIic policy, questions
about which men honestly differ ia
opinion, / desire to discuss the cues
ton above set out, who is response
bic for the Clubs in Anne Arundel
County," Some people blame the
Judges Of our Circuit Court, because
they certify TO their Articles Of Incor-
poration. Some blame the Court Of
Appeals, because of their decision 10
the case oitbe Chesapeake Club. Some
blame the Sheriff and the States At
toFney, and accuse them of neglect of
duty. For my part | am very tired
Of being blamed for that for which
an Ia no way responsible, and ia my
own defence and in defence OF others
who are improperly blamed in this
matter by the people. must show
where the blame really belongs.
will ask attention then to the follow.
ing facts.
|. The Local Option Law provides
that the individual members Of the
Club shall be personally responsible
for violations OF the law by the Club.
(Scs Act Of 1882, CHI. 1l2, sec. ~
2. When the Club is indicted the
State can furnish no evidence OF yio-
lations of the law except by calling
some members OF the Club to testify
3. When the member OF the Club
Ii put upon the stand aa a witness
and questioned by the States Attor-
ney In reference TO the violation Of
the law by his club, be refuses 10
testify on tie ground that lie would
be furnishing evidence to criminate
himself. In this refusal he is jusli
fed by the law hich says: THAT
no man ought TO be compelled to
give evidence against himself in q
criminal case"
s(See Bill of Rights, Art. %.
4. Therefore the prosecution must
fell for want Of evidence.
But is there no way CT reaching
these Clubs by process of law?
There certainly is. If any one will
take the trouble to look at the Gener.
u Incorporation Law Of this State.
the very law under which all these
Clubs are Incorporated, viz: the Act
of 1868, chapter All, be will End that
sections l76 to 1873 inclusive provide
an ample remedy. Those sections
provide "That whenever the Attor-
ney General of the State or the States
Attorney for the City of Baltimore,
or for any county in this State, shall
be authorized By The Gouernoyto insti-
tute proceedings against any corpo-
ration 10 corporatsd under the laws
of this State to ascertain whether
such corporation has been guilty of
such misuse, abuse or non-user Of
its corporate powers ard franchises
as By law would authorize and make
proper the forfeiture of it's charter.
corporated powers and franchises.
the Attorney General or States Al
torney so authorized, shall Gle
petition 10 the name of the State in
the Court where the Articles Of Incor.
poration are 6led, setting forth the
alleged abuse, misuse or non-user by
reason whereof the forfeiture Is
sought; and then 70 on to provide
for bringing the case to q speedy trial.
and also for declaring the forfeiture
Of the charters of such corporations
e. shall be found to have abused or
misused or failed to use their charter
privileges and powers. But the
question may be asked:
Would not the members of the
Clubs be excused from testifyiDg ia
these proceedings Dis veil a. In Grim
inal proceedings I" To which / au-
awer No. for the following rea-
soma
/. These Clubs arc ell, or nearly
I'll. Incorporated as eLitetary, Musi-
cal and Scientific Associations.
3. It would be any easy task to
show that they had not used single
power, privilege OF franchise confer
red upon them By their Charters for
musical, literary or scientific purposes,
without At al going into the question
#<E - =. -