Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-02-26
THE LIQUOR REGULATIONS.
Of Dealers Make Argu-
ments Before the Commissioner.

ments Before the COmmtseionerss
The board room of the Commissioners was
yesterday filed with brewers, Wholesale liquor
dealers and their attorneys for the purpose OF
discussing the ''liquor regulations" lately
adopted By the Commissioners and
giving the new Commissioner. Col
Robert a insight to how the regu-
lations operate. Among those present
were h. E Davis, on behalf Of the Wholesale
dealers; Leon Tobriner, attorney for Christian
Heinrich; John A. Clark, attorney for Albert
Carry; Frank p. Madigan, representing the
Portner brewing company; Joseph p. Shilling
ton, Daniel Z Cahill, Simon Wolf, Christian
heurich, W. s. Albert, representing the Globe
| theater; Albert Garry, Peter Fegan and others
Mr.. DAVIS OPENS
The argument was commenced by Mr.. Davis,
who discussed sections b, G and d of article L
These are regulations which permit the Com
missioners TO refuse . license to any person
against whom there is pending q prosecution,
or who is reported by the police as having sold
liquors to soldierssconfrmed drunkards or in
toxicated persons, or who has sold on Sunday,
or who keeps place where idle, noisy or sus-
picious characters congregate.
Mr.. Davis submitted that the effect Of these
regulations was simply to convict q man on
=
to be heard or q trial in court, as guaranteed
by the Constitution; that the mere report Of a
police officer that an applicant had been
guilty OF one Of the grounds set out as
reason for refusing license should not be &C.
cepted as proof Of the fact, and a person de-
prived Of his business and the practical use Of
his property; that the proper method was first
to obtain conviction in the proper courts and
then having judicial determination Of the part
OF guilt, to act thereon and not upon mere sus-
rntfa tkA A..
prompted perhaps by personal motives. Coun-
sci also referred to the four-in-a-block rule.
and said that no number should be limited in
block; that each square should be considered
by itself; that no arbitrary rule should be
adopted, but that needs OF square should be
considered as each came up for consideration;
the number Of saloons to be put thereon should
be measured by the circumstance.
Mr.. ALBERT AND THE GLOBE THEATER
Mr.. Albert followed Mr.. Davis in the same
line by instancing the case Of the Globe thea
ter, the proprietors Of which had been refused
license because the lieutenant of the precinct
had reported that idle and dissolute char
acters frequented the place. MIR. Albert pro-
duced affidavits showing that the police
had been requested by the proprietors to point
out such characters so that they might be re-
jected, but that they had refused; that the
special officer employed in the theater had
made arrests of persons whom he charged with
being idle and suspicious, and that they
had been released on order of the
lieutenant, with the information that
they attended the theater with his permission
These with quite a number of other affidavits
claiming that the reports of the police were
partial and on account of prejudice were sub
United to show how defective is the system of
obtaining information Is to the character of
applicants.
THE HEARING TO-DAY.
A. al
afternoon, when Mr.. Leon Tobriner, represent
ing Mr.. Heurich, the brewer, and what are
known as the Monte Carlo and county cases,
began his argument
MIR. Tobriner in opening reminded the Com
missioners that their position was most pecu-
liar and at the same time important one; that in
asmuch as the legislative, Judicial and executive
powers were all vested in them whereas the
Constitution Of the country provided that they
should be vested in separate and independent
branches of the government, it behooved them
to proceed cautiously and with care: that while
the courts had held that they had the power to
make regulations they had not held
islate; that line must be
drawn between regulation and legislation. and
in adopting these regulations they had actu-
ally incorporated into them provisions
entirely new and which were the subjects of
legislation. Mr.. Tobriner then took up the
refused because the saloons we're in conjunc-
tion with pool-selling rooms and were places in
which gambling was permitted.
SELLING POOL
Counsel cited authorities to show that the
courts of Maryland and the District had held
that selling pools on races or base ball was not
gambling" and that in consequence of these
decisions Congress had passed an act prohibit
ing the selling of pools in the cities
of Washington and Georgetown and permitting
it in the county. He submitted that the Com
missioners were bound to respect the decisions
OF the courts and Congress and could not con-
strue that to be gambling which the courts had
held otherwise. Mr.. Tobriner then discussed
article 49," known as the thousand-feet
rule. He submitted that this rule dis
eliminated against residents in the country;
that the Commissioners could not pass a regula-
ton which would operate upon only one por-
ton of the District; that their regulations must
be uniform. general and impartial; that they
must stand the same test to which a city
no ordinance which Disseminated be-
tween citizens could be held valid.
He cited a number of cases as illustrating his
proposition, commenting further upon the Sec
ton. He said it provided that before person
could locate saloon within 1000 feet of
another 1t would require the consent of four
fifths OF the heads of families within one mile
of the premises.
If the Commissioners had the right to make
this regulation they had the right to make the
same rule for saloons in the city, and vet the
act of the legislature did not require the con-
on the square. He contended that this is not
regulation, but legislation. and beyond the
powers of the Commissioners.
OTHER ARGUMENrs.
Arguments were also made by Mr.. J. A. Clark
and Mr.. Simon Wolf will make the closing ad-
dress. The discussion Was in progress when
The STAR report closed.
CHICAGO In LUCK AGAIN.