Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-10-19
LICENSES FOR HOTELS
William Whelan's Liquor License Still in
Controversy.
Arguments Today Before the Excise
Board-The 4OO-Foot Clause and
Its Application.

There has been more delay, more bad
feeling and more time lost in connection
with the application of VIM. T. Whelan for
a liquor license at the Virginia Hotel $40
7th street northwest, than 1t ordinarily
takes to get liquor law through Congress.
Since last August the fight has been
waged. On one side the Anti-saloon League
and some protestants; on the other the ap-
plicant. Delays too numerous to mention
have been had. There have been opinions
ments on both sides, briefs filed and much
unnecessary time lost in the consideration
of the case. And what is it all about?
First of all, the applicant leased from the
owner of 1.-THE Virginia enough rooms to
constitute within the meaning of the law
a hotel and applied for a liquor license in
connection Herewith. Then the fight COM
menced First of all, the Anti-saloon League
ton of the law of May IL. 1894, which pro-
hibits the granting Of liquor license to any
place within 400 feet of church or school.
The papers were forthwith sent to the
attorney for the District for an opinion on
this question, and he held that the section
in question did not apply to hotels. Then
Attorney r. Newton Donaldson came into
the case, representing several of the ten
ants in the hotel who were opposed to the
granting of license there.
1t was charged that he represented a sa-
loon keeper in the neighborhood, who did
not want to divide his business with an
other bar room.
Then followed arguments opinions and
briefs too numerous to mention.
There were charges and counter charges
of bad faith on both sides. Time slipped
by and nothing was done. Then the Graf
ton Hotel obtained its license. and it was
thought, in view of the fact that 1t was
Identical with Whelan's case, that the lat
ter " ould be promptly settled. But the eX-
else board did nothing, and this morning
Mr. C. Maurice Smith, attorney for Whe-
Ian, appea, ed before the board to give 1t
the benefit of an argument upon the legal
aspect of the case. He intelligently review
ed the case and maintained that the board
having tefore 1T an opinion from the legal
representative of the District, 1t was bound
in good faith to recognize and adopt the
same, which would give his client license
1t was his opinion that the law sets
apart hotels from the operation OF the
law, and made 1t in effect a separate enact
ment His client had a statutory claim to
a license which the excise board was bound
to respect. 1t had no option In the matter
Col. Bates asked If the character of the
applicant should not be considered in the
granting of liquor licenses. Mr.. Smith
maintained that it should not If the man
was VIGOROUSLY bad and kept a disorderly
place there was the police department to
prosecute. Mr.. Smith devoted consider
able time to the consideration of the pro-
viso in the liquor law, and cited numerous
authorities on the word provided which
tended to show its relation to the act
itself.
He was followed by Mr.. Donaldson, the
attorney for the protestants, who reviewed
the case and asked that 1t be referred to
the attorney for the District for an opin-
ion on the question whether hotel was not
required to obtain signatures when It de-
sired to open a bar room in connection
Herewith.
Attorney Shoemaker of the Anti-saloon
League ended the hearing. He also review
ed the case and gave his Interpretation Of
the law in connection Herewith. He de-
MED that Attorney Thomas opinion was
good law, and quoted number of promi-
nent attorneys who had rendered opinions
in relation to the 4O0-foot limit contrary to
the position taken by Attorney Thomas
If this case is decided in favor of the APP
plicant, he said, the liquor law will re-
teiVe a most terrific blow.