Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1892-08-22

Why was Prosecuting Attorney Neil Dumoat
removed Is . question that has been wander
ing around town since Saturday. From otscial
sources there has, - yet, come no answer. Tn
Officially there is decided impression 70 the
eject that Mr.. Dumont might have continued TO
be Attorney Haxelton' g assistant had Mr. Dumous
been less energetic in the prosecution Of people
who sold liquor without license. Half q dozen
varieties Of rumor are current and new ones
may be momentarily expected, but there IL in
the minds Of several FOLKS Who ought to
know an impression that Mr. Dumonts
energy was not pleasing 10 his superior officer.
Reference has been made TO the fact that Mr.
Dumont did not occupy = desk in Mr. Hazel
ton office and it was alleged that out OF this
so-calted neglect came the friction which was
apparent on Saturday. The story was without
substantial foundation. Mr.. Dumont had an
Office in the immediate vicinity and he pre-
ferred retaining il. He had private clients and
naturally did not want them 20 discuss nstterv
with him In public Office
HOW IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT.
How the removal was brought about has not
yet been made plain. and a. q SrAa reporter
has gathered the facts they are given herewith.
The first intimation the public or Mr.. Dumont
had was on the 18th instant. when The srAn
announced the probable decapitation Of Mr.
Dumont No one was more surprised than
Mr.. Dumont Attorney Hazelton Was also very
much shocked.
"h Mr.. Dumont is to be removed" said he
to STAR reporter. at IL not upon nv recon-
mendation." That seemed to settle the rumor
but. Us usual. The STAR was right for OF the
Following day Mr.. Hazslton sent FOR Mr.; Du-
mont and asked him 90 write aud hand
over immediately his resignation. Mr.. Dumont
wanted to know why this demand should so
suddenly and un1ustly be made. but Mr.
Hazeiton refused for quite a long time 10 ad-
vance any reason, and thercupon Mr.
Dumont refused TO resign. He took this
ground. it is understood. because he
realized the odium which must fall
on him II he voluntarily ceased his prosecu ton
OF unlicensed liquor sellers. He could never
explain such action; could never Justify IT,
Finally Mr.. Hazelton said that the resignation
was necessary, had been asked for, in fact.
because Mr.. Dumont had gone to the Mime
apolis convention and worked and cheered for
Blaine Then Mr.. Dumont laughed aud made
known. to his chief the fact that he was
not such bird @ could be cap
tured BY that kind Of salt Mr.
Hazelton endeavored to assure him that the
President had been personally much grieved by
his pernicious sctivity in behalf Of Mr.. Blaine
and that through United States Marshal Ransdeif
, had come demand for immediate removal Then
AIR. Dumont laughed once more and said that
while the President might have sorrowed over
the so-cslled disloyalty of Mr. Blaine and Mr.
Platt he had not vet stopped 90 low TO
call for revenge upon man who
held such an Insignificant little Office ~ police
court prosecutor at a salary Of q, 200. Failing
Mr.. Dumont once more declared he would not
resign and departed.
TO SOLVE THE LIQUOR PROBLEM.
few days prior to this occurrence there
appeared in The STAR the following:
Mr.. Neil Dumont. the attorney for the Die
trict before the Police Court it seems, has at
length successfully solved the problem of prose-
cutting liquor dealers for carrying on the bust
ness without license. Heretofore the informa-
tions in such cases alleged that the defendants
sold liquor without having FIRST obtained q
license therefor.
The recent decision Of the Court in General
! Term in the Nsu case declared that Il was
not enough FOR the information to charge
that the defendant had sold liquor with
out having first obtained a license
that the information must allege that the
defendant sold liquor without first having paid
the license tax. In order to meet the re-
quirements of this decision Mr.. Dumont now
alleges in his information in the case Of retail
dealers that the defendant engaged in the busi-
moss before paving the license tax" &C. And
further. that the defendant having failed to pay
the said license tax to said District before en-
gaging in said business Is liable to said District
for the said license tax of 800. and being
so liable for said license tax is further liable in
addition to said license tax to pay fine OF PEN
atty OF not less than IS nor more than $50 for
having aforesaid failed to pay said license
tax to said Distric: before engaging in said
business and for engaging in said bust
ness contrary to and in violation Of section l
and section of an act Of the late legislative
assembly Of the District Of Columbia entitled
IAN act imposing license on trades business
and professions practiced or carried on in the
District OF Columbia" approved August Is
A. ID. 1871; and the amendments to said act
as shown by the said amendments to said sec
ton 4, in the act entitled Chapter
XIX, an act to amend an act entitled
An act imposing a license on trades bust
mess and professions in the District Of Co
lumbia, approved August %, 1871, and pro-
viding for the enforcement and collection OF
fines and penalties for carrying on business in
said District without license" approved June
20, 1872. And therefore the District OF Column
bis claims the said license tax of 500 and the
penalty of $50 for said violations Of the said
acts and amendments, with costs.
In conversation with q STAR reporter this
morning Mr. Dumont stated that he felt conf
dent that he had devised an information which
would stand. "In fact" remarked Mr.. Du-
mont. 81 have already secured the conviction
Of three persons under this new information
and several others have come in and plead
guilty."
"Then, Mr.. Dumont," remarked the reporter,
'tnoee persons now selllnS uquOf In the one
mile limit can be successfully prosecuted, can
they not?'
"Undoubtedly, wac the reply
MR. HAzELroN's LErTERs
On the day following his interesting CONVEX
sation with his chief Mr.. Dumont received the
following interesting epistle, which he read in
the Police Court and filed as q part of the court
records:
Neil Dumont, ESQ.,, Special Assistant Attorney,
District Of Columbia:
Dear Sir: see by the paper last night you
have instituted proceedings or are shout 70
prosecute the liquor dealers who are carrying
on the traffic in the mile limit district Az you
have not consulted with me about the prosecu-
tons, I do not know that the Newspaper 90
count IL true, but il il il you win dismiss
any Of such cases already commenced and
withhold any future prosecutions In that line
until further directions. You can use this be-
fore the court If you Ike a. your authority for
Diminishing the proceedings
Very truly yours,
Gro. @. HAMILTON,
Attorney, d. @.
I'm reply TO this letter" said Mr.. Dumont,
'T wrote Mr.. Haselton q note telling Of what I
had done; that had instituted proceedings