Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-07-19

For some days past the Commissioners have
been receiving complaints against certain bar
rooms These complaints set out that the
licenses 10 sell liquor were obtained by fraud,
and further that the law was being continually
violated The heutenants Of police in whose
precincts the saloons complained Of were
located were asked for reports. They looked
into the matter and forwarded their report to
the Commissioners with recommendations that
the licenses on the cases inquired into be re-
yoked. The Commissioners submitted the
question Of their authority to the attorney for
the District, and to-day he replied in the fol-
lowing opinion:
In each Of the incloeed cases the question
arises as to the power of the Commissioners to
revoke the license. The power TO do this was
especially conferred on the mayor of Washing
ton by various ordinances, and these provisions
conviction for selling liquor to minors incurred
TINS additional penalty. Webb, 226, So again
Id, p. 45S- These are retail license cases.
In the case of a Wholesale license a bond is
required to observe the law and any infraction
may be visited by q summary revocation of the
license by the mayor. Id. p. 4s0. In each
case the power of canceling the license was
vested in che mayor only.
at will be remembered that the act OF Feb
ruary Il, 1871, abolished the corporation of
while 1t continued the ordinances it did not
preserve the vestige of the mayors powers. 1t
made the District the successor Of the two
cities, but not of their mayors authority. See
sections 81 to 96 Revised Statutes ID. c., &c. 1t
seems to me that these provisions comforting
this power have become obsolete for want Of
officers with authority TO execute them.
II have always held and so advised that IL
cense procured by fraud or any undue means
might and should be cancelled by the Commits
sioners. So also in cases where, after applica-
ton made complying with the license law some
OF the conditions had been changed, and the IL
cense board, unaware of the change, granted a
license, and afterward. on learning that fact,
my advice, the Commissioners Cancelled the Ii
cense as inadvertently granted, and this action
the Criminal Court sustained in the Brosnan
case. This last ruling applies TO none of these
cases submitted
mo. 1881 police Department. remember
no law requiring hcensee to be a resident of
the District. Clearly, on this showing in this
case the license was fraudulently obtained and
may be cancelled. The absence of .
itself, with the presence of who had
failed, are quite conclusive
do. OF the case No. 37947-This as I think
may be amenable to the same treatment Is
This the same above named.
"Of these two cases, should YOU deem the
facts to warrant and actually cancel the license
In either or both, the order had better set forth
the grounds and copy served on the licensee
with notice that il he continued to sell after
the day of service he will be prosecuted for
selling without license. The order and notice
should be served by copy, and the original re-
turned with affidavits of service.
mo. 3799l-The court curiously enough held
that beer bought in bottles might be drank on
the premises of wholesale licensee, which
simply nullifies the ordinance. webb 43O,
sec. ~
With the view of the law above. however, /
should hesitate as at present advised to cancel
the license for any cause not affecting the valid
ity of granting il.