Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1894-06-06
ELIGIBLE FOR A LICENSE
Opinion of the Attorney in the Case of
Donnelly.
The Reasons Given by Mr.. Thomas
for Arriving at such
Conclusion.

An important opinion bearing upon
question of liquor license has just been re-
ceived by the Commissioners from the at
torney for the District, Mr.. S. T. Thomas
The opinion was called forth by the appli-
cation of James ID. Donnelly for a whole
sale liquor license at S2S 18th street north
west. The question the attorney was
called upon to decide was whether the pos
session of a U. 9. internal revenue license
granted to applicant, and in force March 3.
1898. would give the excise board the right
to grant wholesale liquor license under
the provision of the 18th section of the act
of March 3. as amended, no license having
been granted to the applicant for said place
by the District since the year 1891.
The place is within 400 feet of the Emer-
son school. but was located prior to the
occupancy OF the school. The law contem-
plates continuous license. and Donnelly has
been without license two years, although
he has had d revenue license. So the queS-
ton is really whether the possession of the
revenue license can be construed as a
lie en%e within the meaning of the act.
Donnelly several years ago persistently
fought the authorities, and his case was
Used by the Commissioners before Congress
in an endeavor to get better liquor laws.
Attorney Thomas. in his opinion, says:
The internal revenue law has nothing to
do with local excise laws. and does not en-
empt persons paying the tax from taking
out licenses under local or municipal excise
systems. In reference to the question
whether Mr.. Donnelly. in view of the
amendment of section 16 of the act of
March 8, 1S3;, is entitled to a license that
is entirely different matter The lam
guage such places of business as were To-
Gated and licensed at the date of said act
contained in the amendment of section IL
of the act of 1888, does not necessarily
mean that an applicant must nave had a
paper license at the date of said act The
act Of the late legislative assembly, ap-
proved August %, 1871, imposing licenses
upon trades, business and professions in the
District of Columbia, and which was the
liquor law prior TO March 3, 1893, by it's
second section provided, among other things,
that every person engaged in any trade,
business or profession for which license
tax is imposed by the laws of the District
OF Columbia shall at the time for procuring
the same make application to the register
NOW the assessor), stating under oath such
facts as may be applicable to the license
desired The register (now the
sessOr) shall then issue to the applicant a
certificate stating the particular kind of
license for which application has been made
and the amount of money required by law
to be paid therefor. Said certificate shall be
delivered 10 the collector. who shall. upon
the receipt of the sum of money stated
therein, give a certificate of deposit stating
the amount of money paid and the kind of
license required, and it shall be the duty of
the register NOW the assessor) to issue
such license. etc
BY a subsequent act of the assembly, APP
proved January 49, 1872, authorizing the re-
funding of money enormously paid for
taxes, and also money paid for licenses not
granted etc. it is provided by section two
that whenever any person shall deposit
any money in the treasury (of the DISTRICT
for the purpose Of procuring license and
said license shall have been subsequently
refused by legal authority, Ii shall be the
duty of the accounting and disbursing Of
ficers of the District to refund the money
so deposited. deducting therefrom an
amount justly proportionate to the time
during which said license shall have been
used by the applicant therefor. or his repre-
sentatives. and charge the amount so
funded to the fund which was credited to
the original deposit The result of this
legislation, and the practice of the munich
pal authorities in regard to liquor licenses
prior to the act of March 3, 1893, was to
permit applicants for liquor licenses. of
both classes. on making the necessary de-
post OF the license fee. to proceed with
their business until their application was
either granted or refused. The effect of the
law was, therefore, to license every such
applicant. either from the date of his appli-
cation and deposit to the date of the re-
lection of his application or to the end of
the license year, If the application was
granted. Now, can such an applicant be
considered as doing business without a IL
cense? 1t seems to me not. Donnelly had
permission to sell liquor He had for the
time being all the license the law required
He was not liable to arrest for doing BUSH
NESS "llilOul a nCeIlSe- ne mere issuance
TO an applicant of a paper license Is evil
dence only that his application had been
granted. If his application had been re-
Jected he could not have been prosecuted
for sales between the date of his applica-
ton and deposit and the date of the reiec-
ton of his application. In other words Mr.
Donnelly having had an application for a
license pending on March 3. 1s!3 must be
considered as having been licensed from the
date of his application. November l. 1872
until the rejection of his applica ton in
March. 1888. The District authorities de-
Quoted from his deposit the proportfonate
amount of the license fee which would
have been earned to March 5, 1899, had he
been granted license, and returned to him
the balance.
FOR these reasons my opinion is Mr.. Dom
nelly Is eligible for a license under the
amendment of section IL of the act of
harch ). 1885, which exempts such places of
business as were located and licensed on
that GATE. II the excise board, in virtue of
me discretion invested in 1t by law sees
MT to grant him license"