Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-08-31

WnAT HAS BEEN AccoxPLIsHED UxDEB 4 Law
THAT nR- HAMILTON sAys WAS RKPEALED-rHE
MAO DRcIsIoS-MR. DUMoxT nranLY coxPLr-
xESrED Br BOTH roLIcE coUnr JUDGES.
Mr.. George c. Hazelton, attorney for the
District, has to srAR reporter made state
ment which Mr.. Hszelton says is sufficient to
explain his action n in the Dumont matter.
''The so-called mile limit law Of February %,
1884," said Mr.. Haxelton, "reads a. follows:
That ON and after the passage of this act no
license for the sale Of in toxicating liquor at
any place within one mile of the SOLDIER
Home property in the District of Columbia
shall be granted
This law does not directly prohibit the sale
Of liquor within the said territories, but pro-
hibits the Commissioners from granting q
license for the sale of the same therein. The
late District Supreme Court decision left the
District without any power 10 punish the
offenders for selling liquor without license
within the mile limit or elsewhere in the
District.
Congress gave us no help other than the
resolution Of February 26. 1892 (under which
regulations have been framed by the Com
missioners), which is yet to be psssed upon by
the courts as to the extent and nature of the
authority conferred thereby on this subject.
Nov, while in this condition, without any
law for the enforcement Of q penalty, the whole
ried on in the courts for twenty years having
been struck down by the Supreme
Court Of the District Of Columbia in
General Term, prosecutions were COM
menced by my assistant in the Police
Court against the liquor dealers who had
opened up business in the mile-limit territory
since the decision declaring our license law
nugatory. The prosecutions or informations
were intended probably to be based on an old
law OF the Levy Court, but that law had been
expressly repealed, SO that the informations
were without authority or legal foundation of
reason why the defendants should be arrested
and brought into court arbitrarily and without
any authority Of law or cause at the ex-
pense Of the District and with no
chance or hope of conviction, and creating
perhaps liability of the citizen or District to
prosecutions for personal damages for arrests
made and publicly known to be made without
any authority Of law whatever, and therefore
directed such informations and prosecutions to
be dismissed. and am satisfied that I was
right in so doing"
Mr.. DUMoNT DIFFERS IN OPINION.
On this question of law there seems to be con-
siderable difference of opinion between Mr..
Hazelton and Mr.. Dumont.
To STAR reporter who saw Mr.. Dumont this
afternoon that gentleman made known the fol-
lowing as his views:
''The late decision of the Supreme Court of
the District of Columbia in the Nau case" said
Mr.. Dumont most emphatically, .'did not strike
down the whole power of the courts of the Dis
trict to punish offenders against the license laws.
That decision did not leave them without rem
edy. In point of fact, it rendered convictions
easier, for certain evidence could be admitted
under an information brought for violation of a
revenue ri which uOuld he avcludad upIor q
purely criminal charge. For example.a business
card, signs, bills and the taking out Of o United
States revenue license are proofs of engaging in
business, while they would not be proof Of
sale without license
ION this line drafted the information under
the Nan decision, and after submitting it to nv
official chief, Mr.. Hazleton, it was printed. 1t
was operative for an ofense arising under the
license laws, and not alone to the liquor ques-
ton; hence was operative all over the District.
THE LEVY COURT Law.
But there are portions Of the District in
which it is unlawful to sell without Incense. In
that fringe of territory known as the county
the unrepealed Levy Court act applies 1t will
be found on page - Of the Ordinances of Levy
Court in section G, which says:
If any person shallkeep an ordinary tavern,
or house Of public entertainment in said county
without having an existing and effectual license
therefor, or II any person. without such hcense,
shall sell a less quantity than one gallon
Of intoxicating liquor, or shall, without
such license, sell any quantity Of intoxi-
eating liquor, and suffer the same to be drank
premises, shall, without such license, sell any
quantity Of such liquor, and deliver a less
quantity thereof than one gallon at any one
time, every person SO offending shall forfeit
and pay to the Levy Court for the use Of the
county not less than IS nor more than $50 for
each and every such offense.'
WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.
$50 that in the county we have two lines Of
protection, viz, one under theNau decision, for
the penalty for engaging in the busi-
ness before paying the license tax, and the
other for selling without a license. The
county, therefore, has more protective laws
than the city. The prosecutions had brought
were under the Nau decision. I had started in
under the Levy Court ordinance and had
gotten conviction; the defendants at
torney had struck at that information, de-
clared the law repealed and so on, but when
overruled and judgment declared against his
client. promptly paid the fine. By pushing
these two acts every liquor seller within the
mile limit outside the cities of Washington and
Georgetown could be driven away or fined out
of business.
There was nothing arbitrary about the ar
rests and the District stood no chance for suit
for damage under such prosecution. That was
one OF the matters l always had before me.
However, it is not now my province to tell
the District Of Columbia how to prosecute.
only state the ground took to reach those who
desired to violate or who would persist in vio-
lation Of what is now clear and existing law"
OLD AND NEW FORMS OF INFORMATION.
The old form Of information, which was
thrown out and rendered useless by the Nau
decision, alleges that the defendant did engage
sin the business of keeping place where dis
titled and fermented liquors, wines and cor
dials were sold in less quantities than one pint
at time to the same purchaser, to wit, tip
pling house, bar room, sample room, without
having obtained license SO to do"
The new information is based upon the ex-
perience gained through the Nau decision It
was drafted by Mr.. Dumont and submitted to
Mr. Hazelton. So well satisfied with its
efficacy at that time was Mr.. Hazelton that
he had his own name printed on the infor-
nation in two places, something entirely novel
30 far as Police Court infoTmations in the
District were concerned, it having here
tofore been the practice to have no other
representatives Of the attorneys Office on
the paper than the special assistant attorney
who did the actual prosecuting. This amended
information makes it plain that the defendant
'before paying the license tax Of s100 required
by law to be by him paid to said District, before
engaging in the business hereinafter named,
and being required to pay q license
tax before engaging in the business hereinafter
namad did ep0 he huaiuaca ~ koacs,,rx n