Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-03-24
THE JUDGE ASKS TREouENr QUESTIONS, ALL or
WHICH ABE ANswxREp-MR. CLARKE OPENS
FOR THE DEFKNsE AND CONTENDS THAT THE
NEW Law 10 RETROACTIVE.

paSe oOf.
NEW YORK DECISION.
Mr.. Pugh then proceeded to read the decision
and the laws under which the prosecutions
were brought. He referred to section u of the
new act, which be said expressly stated that all
persons engaged in the liquor business should
obtain license under the provisions of the new
law. The law went into effect from the
date of its approval, and he argued
that it was not for the court
| to say how long the dealers were to be per-
mitted to disregard Its provisions Mr.. Pugh
then referred to the decision OF Judge Klmball
in the Schatz case to show that the law and its
provisions in full force, and closed his
argument after citing several additional author
ities in support Of his position in the matter
THE NAU CASE BROUGHT Up
Before adjournment Judge Miller said he
would like to hear from the District something
concerning the decision in the Nau case us af-
fecting the act of 1871, and he would like to
hear whether that act as a revenue act does not
continue in force the license tax involved in
this case.
Both Mr.. Hazelton and Mr.. Pugh were of the
opinion that that question in no manner affects
the question before the court, and with the I'M
ders:anding that Mr.. Hazelton would answer
the questions suggested by the court the case
went over until today.
MR.. HAzELroN BEGAN TODAY.
This morning when the case was resumed in
Judge Miller's court each side had enough law
books on the tables to start law library for
the Supreme Court
Mr. Hazelton arose and opened the discus
sion of the day.
Judge Miller said that when the court
adjourned yesterday the arguments had mar
rowed down to q question Of whether by the
terms of the act of 1871 the defendant has
right to continue business under the old license.
He mentioned the decision in the Nau
case, in which it was held that the
act was one for revenue. The act Of March 8,
1893, being a license act, passed in the exercise
of police power, the judge wanted to know
whether the license of 1871 was granted on any
footing other than the exercise OF police power.
The question now narrows down to whether the
act Of '93 repeats these licenses.
Mr. Hazelton then proceeded to argue that
the power of Congress to legislate for the Dis
trict and the territories unlimited, and in
this the court fully agreed with him.
AUTHORITIES CITED.
Mr.. Hazelton then cited authorities to show
that the licenses upon which Mr.. Bush relies
for justification were issued under police pow
ers and not under revenue laws, which he said
were higher than the courts themselves. The
case of Quang Woo. from the state OF Califor.
MIA, was cited: as was the Manion case reported
In 9th. Mackey, in which the opinion
was delivered by Chief Justice Bingham.
decision O, the court defining the
rights Of the Commissioners to make GER
tain regulations and the case in question was
upon the rule separating grocery stores and re-
tail liquor places. The next case cited was the
Globe Theater mandamus case. reported in vol
ume 10 Of the District of Columbia reports.
This, said Mr.. Hazelton, was as late as May 10.
1880. and it reatfrmed the decision of the court
in the other case. He read the decision and
hot fba aat %
police power and not an act for revenue.
Mr.. Hazelton then turned his attention to
the Nau case and read part Of the courts deci-
sion. He did not think that the Nau decision
as an entirety was good law. The courts. he
said, are not always right, for in the Nau case
the court he said. reversed its own decision
made in the Manion and Globe Theater cases
In the two cases, he said, the court held that
the act of 1871 was under police power, while
in the Nau case 1t was held that the act was for
revenue.
THE ACT OF 1871 REPEALED.
Coming to the second proposition Mr.. Hazel
ton said it made no difference whether the act
OF 1871 was under police power or whether it
a law for revenue. The act Of 1898 re-
pealed it and rendered void all licenses issued
under it.
An Indiana decision was cited, and Judge
kimball, who occupied seat on the bench
with Judge Miller. said he knew Of a law in
some parts OF Indiana where licenses under the
state and comfy were both required.
liquor decision from the Nebraska courts
was next called to the attention Of the court.
and this decision, said Mr.. Hazelton is in direct
line with his proposition that the new law re-
pealed every word OF the act of II.
''Old things have all passed away" he said,
land all things SO far as the regulation OF the
liquor traffic is concerned have become new,
and are under an entirely new dispensation,"
This law (Nebraska), he said does not In any
way restrict as therein provided"
docs it not make that exception2" queried
the court.
mo. sir" replied Mr.. Hazelton.
'That is about all desire to hear from the
District at present." said the court
But, your honor" said Mr.. Hazelton, II
would like to present something Of the law
the state of Georgia"
The court then took a recess for lunch.
When court convened after recess the court
called Mr.. Hazelton's attention to an Indiana
case cited on behalf of the prosecution
and said that the facts in that case
were not the same as exist under
the law here. The court read the case and re-
corning the repeal of a law. In that case, the
court explained, the question at issue was the
right to repeal the law.
The District rested its case and Mr.. Clarke
opened for the defense.
MR.. CLARKE OPENS FOR THE DEFENSE.
He opened his argument by asking the court
to use little common sense in constituting the
statute Of Congress. The law, he said, was
enacted by Congress after the liquor dealers,
the Women's Christian Temperance
Union and others had been
knocking at their doors and asking in the name
OF God and humanity that they enact some
measure which would forever settle this vexed
question.
I'm starting out" said Mr.. Clarke, II claim
that under the decision in the Narr case and
under the system Of licenses. the law of 1893 Is
an act for revenue SO far as it undertakes to re-
peal the provisions Of the act OF 1875, and fur
Their, that the licenses granted under the act of
1875 were contracts.'
After citing . Texas case Mr.. Clarke said
that for some reason counsel on the other side
had neglected to read section II of the act of
1888, which he read, as follows:
SECTION II READ.
That all applicants who have had license
during the preceding year shall apply for 10
newal Of such license on or before Novem-
Der ! OF each license year. and shall be per-
United to continue business until license shall
be granted or refused by the excise board /;
out In All cases OF refusal to grant license such
proportion Of the license fee ~ may have be-
come due shall be deducted and retained from
the sum deposited therefor as the time
from the LIST day Of November to the date Of
such refusal bears to the entire license year.
and no other person shall be permitted 10 con-