Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-02-20
LICENSES FOR CLUBS.
They Are Net Necessary, Says the At
tOraey for the District.

They Are Net Necessary, Says the Al
tOrRey for the District.
The attorney for the District today rem
dered an opinion to the Commissioners
with reference to the recent communication
Of Mr. James l.. Ewin, vice president Of
the Anti-saloon League. in regard to the
decision of Judge Miller Of the Police Court
in what is known as 1.-The National Capital
Press Club case which was referred to
him for his views.
In the case referred to, he says, which was
that Of the District agt. Holmes Steward OF
the Press Club, Judge Miller after stating
the scheme Of the Press Club showing that
it was a class club. sort of a conventional
family, held in effect that bona fide. social
dncorporatedD clubs. with limited member
Ship admission to which cannot be OBJ
tanned by persons at pleasure, and whose
property is actually owned in common by
It's members, cannot be held for dispensing
liquors belonging to them among the mem
bers and guests because such distribution
of liquor was not q sale within the meaning
Of the act of Congress regulating the sale
of intoxicating liquors in this District.
The question. he says, whether social
clubs are required to take out liquor Ii
censes has been much discussed in recent
years. The supreme court of Missouri. In
State agt. st. Louis Club. has within the
past month handed down an opinion In
which 1t is held that bona fide social incor-
porated clubs with limited membership ad-
mission to which cannot be obtained by
persons at pleasure. and whose property Is
actually owned in common by Its members,
and which distributes liquor belonging to 1t
among it's members and guests. cannot be
held for selling liquor under the Missouri
dram shop act. In England 1t has been
held that the dispensing of liquors by clubs
to their members is not a sale under the
layV IF ENGLAND The same result
he says, has been reached in Massachusetts
The supreme court OF Maryland helo the
transaction not sale as did also the su-
preme court of Tennessee. In Piedmont
Club agt Commonwealth, Virginia, the su-
preme court Of Virginia held that the sale
of liquor by the Piedmont Club was not
sale as was contemplated by the virginia
excise laws.
In a recent case in South Carolina, he
continues, the supreme court of that state.
in deciding that q social club Is not liable
to pay license. points out that much OF the
seeming conflict of cases arises from two
cases-first where the alleged club as a
matter of fact Is not bona fide what 1t pur-
ports to be. but Is mere device TO eVade
the law against retailing liquor without
license. In all such cases, he says, the club
is liable: and, second, from the difference
in the terms of the various acts upon the
subject, each court constituting Tor Itself
the laws and regulations Of its own state.
Our statute, he concludes, Is one to reg
ulate the sale of intoxicating liquors. and
It provides by it's first section that no per-
son shall sell, offer for sale or keep for sale
or traffic in any intoxicating liquors. only
those persons who do that are required to
have a license. He says that If bona fde
social, Incorporated clubs do not sell or
traffic in liquors and do not make source
Of revenue then they do not. as was held
by Judge Miller need n license. He says
that until Judge Miller's decision is re-
versed in some proper way 1t must be con-
stdered the law. He concludes that If the
Commissioners are not satisfied with that
decision and desire to take the opinion of
the Court of Appeals on the subject. 1t
will be necessary to file an information
against one of the clubs in the Criminal
Court.