Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-11-05
rBE NEW LIQUOR INFORMATION.
II IL Claimed That Ii Follow. the Line Laid
Out by Mr.. Dumont.


Out by MT. Dumont.
The lawyers who have been watching the
efforts of the attorney for the District to climb
out of the hole he dropped himself into hen he
dismissed Mr.. Neill Dumont contend that the
so-called new information on which il is pro-
posed TO prosecute liquor dealers does not and
cannot differ in any material point from the
information on which Mr.. Dumont was pro-
ceeding when he was ordered TO dismiss the
cases and requested TO resign.
MIR. Dumont seems to be satisfied that there
is now other way than the one he pointed
out. MY information, said he TO STAR ~
porter. was not based on a violation Of an old
ordinance Of the Lew Court. As long ago
Agust 81 last The STAR printed
copy Of my information, which was
based on section Of the act OF
the legislative assembly OF August %. 1871. and
the amendments thereto. approved June 80.
1877. OF course the district attorney may
change the verbisge Of has new information.
put II he expects C. win a case be will follow
the lines l laid down and viii depend
upon The very laws which he declared
Nalueless. IL Is all wrong 60 suppose that the
Nau case put an end TO the prosecution OF liquor
dealers. What did | saw TO THE STAR on the
Slst of August And then Mr. Dumont read
from an interview published in The STAR OF
that date a. follows
TIE District of Columbia IL the Nau case" said
Mr. Dumont most emphatically did not strike
uoWh 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 il rendered convictions
easier, for certain evidence could be admitted
under an information brought for violation of a
revenue act which would be excluded under
purely criminal charge. For example business
card, signs, bills and the taking ont of a United
states revenue license are proofs Of engaging in
business, while they would not be proof of
sale without license
ON this line drafted the information under
the Nan decision. and after submitting il TO INV
ofncial chief. Mr.. Hazelton. II was printed Ii
was operative for an offense arising under the
license laws and not alone to the liquor aues-
non, hence was operative all over the District.
THE LEVY COURT LAW.
But there are portions Of the District in
which II Is unlawful 10 sell without license. In
that fringe Of territory known as the county
the unrepealed Levy Court act applies. twill
be found on page II of the Ordinances of Levy
Court IN section 6. which saw:
IF any person shall keep an ordinary.
tavern or house of public entertainment in said
county without having an existing and eifectual
Incense therefor. If any person without
such license. shall sell less quantity than one
gallon OF intoxicating liquor, or shall without
eating liquor and suffer the same 10 be drunk
IN HE or her house, on his or her premises.
or 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 paw 10 the Levy
Court, for the lice of the county, not less than
80 nor more than $50 for each and every such
offense.'
WHAT COULD HAVE BERN ACCOMPLISHMENT.
$50 that in the county we have two lines of
protection. viz, one under the Nsu decision,
for the penalty for engaging in the bust
ness before paving 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. | had started in
under the Levy Court ordinance and had gotten
conviction, the defendants attorney had
struck at that information. declared the law
repealed, and 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
THE LEVY COURT ACT NOT REPEALED.
ITO say that the levy court act" continued
MIR. Dumont, putting down the paper lis of
no effect is to speak without reason This Levy
Court act referred to, not being inconsistent
with the act of the legislative assembly of
August %, 1871. was not repealed, and is there
Tore now in force