Spirit of Jefferson. [volume] (Charles Town, Va. [W. Va.]) 1844-1948, 1890-08-26
Communicates.

bully under the head Of Reedfsna u
Jefferson, made in the recent issue
OF the s4lUocdte, in regard To- the ac-
ton OF the County Court in the mat
ter Of the petitioners to revoke the
license of Mr.. Hart at Summit Point
TO keep a saloon. I would beg leave
10 request you to publish the follow
ing: Atthe last Circuit Court these
petitioners failed TO induce the grand
jury to ind an indictment against
Mr.. Hart FOR violating his license.
The grand jury is supposed to be
composed Of good and true men and /
Mr.. Morrow of the Adyocdte as fore
man. Then they 60 to the County
Court and there fail, and now this
moral bully in an article published by
the Advoc0te which shows him TO be
of that gossipy, tatiing, scand alizing
and libeling class so disgusting TO all
good men, appeals to the public in a
form and manner which not only in
dictates an utter Want Of good breed |
ing but also q WGntof fairness and
sense % justice, and shows his heart
to be controlled by spite, hate, vim
dictiveRese and al uucharitahIeness.
God forbid that such man should
ever be q Judge, a grand-juryman or
petty juryman in 8 case of mine
For selling Intoxicating drinks toI
minors, to any one on Sunday, to
one intoxicated, &C., the law de-
clares it a misdemeanor, punishable
by imprisonment in Jail. and fixes the
penalty at not less than 500 and not
more than 800. IL the Legislature
intended that a vioIation of license
laws in cases fragrant should be con-
sidered good cause for for revolving
the license, why did it not say that
Tor selling to q minor, to one iutoxi-
Gated and to any one on Sunday, the
license should be ipso facto, and, by
operation of law, forfeited? On the
contrary, it fixes the penalty at the
minimum of $50 and the maximum of
500, and directs how to proceed to
enforce the penalty. The Court rep
resenss the sense of Justice and fair
play OF the people OF the county, and
would be unworthy OF their position
liz it could be led away from q just
and proper course hy heated and an
CRY petitions or feed attorneys how
ever respectable and worthy.
The penalty for either of the above
offenses is imprisonment in Jail and a
fine of not less than $40 nor more
than S100as is fixed by law. Now see
what would be the effect, the heavy
penalty on Mr.. Hart il the Court had
revoked his license. He has already
paid $3.50 license tax, has rented u
house and saloon, put in fixtures and
laid in his stock, all of which might
amount to $500 or $1,000, most of
which he would have net had, had his
| license been recalled. The Court
thought it was too heavy a punish
j meDt and more than the Law. contem-
fplated. The object of the petition
ers is unprecedented and more like
''Reedism' than the just and fair de-
cision of the County Court. have
never known . license revoked in
West Virginia or old Virginia for
either OF the offenses above and the
81 zCou-t ser-posf-rs ttiiii
] dozed and Viililied into Violating all
4 precedent as did Reed in Congress,
!, and forced to revoke a license when
the statute provides ample penalties
for the violations OF the conditions of
the same. Our Court Of Appeals has
: lately decided that where statute
imposes penalties upon persons for
failure to comply with its provis-
] ions, such penalties are deemed ex-
elusive of any other penal IN It's ma
ture or character. Where the Legisla-
U ture does not expressly declare that
. license shall be void for failure to
comply with the statute the Courts
? will refuse to imply such aresult, I'M
less it be NECESSARY to attain the
primary object of the statute. Now
any thoughtful man can SEQ that 1t
was not the primary purpose OF the
| Legislature Tin passing the penal
statutes touching violations of the Ii
lcense Iaw) to render the license void,
FOR the Legislature has expressly pro-
vided lesser penalties as L have cited
above. 1t is true that MIR. Hart let
the wife OF the gentleman who drew
ap, presented and pressed the petit
ton before the Court, have an ounce
Or so of whiskey on Sunday for her
little boy who was crazy with an acute
and raging teothache. 1 thought
that was neighborly, charitable and
pardonable, and no more a violation
of the spirit of the law than taking
an OK out of pit on Sunday was a
violation of the gospels and the law.
A human being is entitled to an equal
consideration with an OK, at least. -
He also let man have glass of
beer. Now these were the only adj
mitted and proven offenses against
Mr.. Hart. The Court was not salts
fed that he kept disorderly and in
decent house. Nor did the Court be-
lieve that Mr.. Hart sold whiskey to
habitual drunkards. As to selling
to minor it appeared in evidence
that Mr.. Hart refused at first to sell
to him, but the boy affirmed that he
was OF age and when it was substan-
tiated by the bystsnders, he let him
have drink.
The law authorizes the Court to
revoke license for good cause only,
and it is discretionary with the Court
entirely to do SO or not. In this case.
which is by no means fragrant, the
Court deemed the revocation of the
license not commensurate with the
offense, and therefore With honest
convictions and the courage that be-
longs to honest convictions, refused
the prayer of the petitioners and thus