Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-07-29

Persons interested in the hquor-license ques-
| ton in the District Of Columbia we're given a
hearing by tho House District committee today
on the pending liquor license bills. Messrs.
Burton and Moore were the only members Of
| the committee present. Though it was to
have been meeting of the full committee q
| subcommittee meeting was made Of il, the two
members being quorum.
Mr.. DODGE on CRrNR IN WASHINGTON.
Mr.. ". C. Dodge was the first speaker. He
said that in speaking of this bill he wanted
to speak Of another, which was inseparably
connected with the license bili-that was, he
said. the bill to prohibit the carrying OF con-
cealed weapons. He said that the committee
had no conception of the crime and degrade
ton in this city. He referred to o statement
by Commissioner Eaton at one time that the
criminal record in Washington was worse than
that of Chicago or New York, according to
population. He read statistics showing the
number of murders and arrests in the District
He read from Police Court reports from The
STAR references to crimes of various magni-
tude, which were traced to drunkenness.
IN FAVOR OF HIGH LICENSE.
He said that he was not prohibitionist and
not total abstainer, but he earnestly advo-
Gated the adoption Of some such high-license
measure as the one under consideration. Pro-
ceeding with the references to reports of
crimes he said that nearly all the crimes, as
saults and murders resulted from drink and
carrying weapons. He referred to the Adler
killing and other crimes In which whisky and
concealed weapons were associated. He said
there had been many deliberate murders Of
policemen during the past four or five years;
that three times within the past two years
judges in the District have instructed District
juries that IL the prisoner was shown to be so
drunk as not to know what he was about they
could not convict him.
MR.. sCHADE AGAINST THE DOUGLASS BILL.
Mr. Louis Schade then spoke against the bill.
He said that nobody seemed to favor the bill.
The Commissioners did not appear here TO
advocate 1t; Mr.. Dodge had not advocated it in
his remarks; the leading prohibltionists of the
city were present and were not willing to adj
vocate the bill. Therefore he had right to
say that no one had defended the measure. He
sharply criticised Mr.. Dodge for "defaming
the good character of the city" He said that
the people he representative hotel men, the
saloon men and Wholesale dealers--did not de-
fend disorderly places. He said that If there
was a bad place it was chargeable to the Com
missioners, IL they claimed and exercised
prohibitory power He said that the high
license would do no good, but would
take more money out of circulation and lock
it up in the Treasury, since the Commissioners
already decided who should have license
He said: Nobody but the Commissioners want
this bill passed II they execute the laws faith
fully and impartially nobody will find fault
with them. Surely it would be more proper
for them to have less to do with legislation and
more with the execution of the laws. If they
want to carry out the law against hotels and
restaurants let them do SO also against the four
criminal offenses cited in the statutes"
THE PRESENT LAW AND THE PROPOSED LAW.
SAT present an applicant for bar-room license
must have a majority of the property holders
and residents on the two sides of the street
within the square. The new bill requires two
thirds. That will close most all OF or big
hotels and four-fifths Of our restaurants. Any
violation Of the act. among which is selling a
glass Of beer or wine behind closed doors on a
Sunday, is punishable with fine of from 800
to $500, and for a second offense with similar
fine and imprisonment for not less than six
months and no more than one year, and his
license shall be revoked
Section fines every person who gets
drink on a Sunday or after IL o'clock pm.
from S25 to $50. License shall not be granted.
among others. to persons who own premises
which are or have been used as a bawdy house
during said Year. That recognizes bawdy
houses having some right to exist. The bill
refuses license where any of the provisions OF
this act have been violated during the two pre-
ceding license years. 1t is therefore retroactive
Police officers have the right to enter the
rants, &C., at any time, night and day. A
refusal shall be sufficient ground to reject
and withdraw license. That allows police
men to come into private rooms in hotels, and
degrades the hotel, grocer and restaurant
keeper below the bawdy house keeper whose
premises can only be visited by policemen
upon the written complaint Of two respectable
citizens to the major Of police. At the end of
the bill the Commissioners claim prohibitory
power, by which, even il a two-thirds majority
has been obtained, they can close up any place
they please.
''There is no necessity for the passage Of this
bill. which will drive every respectable man
out OF business. For no man of any character
cares to drive trade judged 10 the statutes to
be more criminal and odiOus than bawdy house
keeping"
Mr. ToBRINER AGAINST THE BILL
MIR. L. Tobriner next spoke against the bill.
He said that the Commissioners had announced
that they would not issue more than 400
licenses this coming year. He said that there
was nothing in this bill that required the ac-
ton Of Congress; there was no provision in it
that could not be enforced by the Commits
sioners without any action Of Congress. He
read the decisions by the courts confirming the
power and discretion in the Commission
ers as to the issuance of licenses. He
said the Commissioners could do as they
pleased--issue or refuse to issue q license.
He quoted the Globe Theater case, in which
the court held that the Commissioners had dis
cret:onary power. He said the Commissioners
now could do everything but increase the cost
of license; they had and exercised prohibitory
powers already. With relations to the license
fee in the bill he construed the language to
mean that $500 would have to be paid before
any liquors could be sold, and that $500 ad-
ditional would have to be paid for bar-room
license.
Mn. MoULToS's ARGUMENT.
Mr. H. b. Moulton said he was in favor of
neither bill. Mr.. Tobriner had correctly
represented the position Of the court.
The bills were better than the present law. in
asmuch as they placed more restrictions around
the sale of liquor. He argued against the high
license feature as un-American. II 1t was
proper to carry on this business the poor men
had as much right to engage in it as the rich.
More harm. he thought, was done to young
bar rooms and dives. He favored the
provision for the consent of two-thirds
instead Of Q majority Of the residents
and property holders on the square
with the proposed saloon; he favored placing
the burden Of proof on the saloon keeper
charged with violation of the law. He said
he could never consent to high license. He
would rather see free whisky, for the end would
come sooner. High license in the end would
increase drunkenness.
BETTER THAN THE PRESENT LAW
Ex-Representative Price. prohibitionist, said
that he thought this bill was better than
the present law, and that the fact that the
liquor men did not want it was enough TO make
him favor it.