Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1895-01-05


Club against the information charging the
excise law by selling liquor without Ii
which will take place next week before
Judge Miller and jury.
The case was brought before Judge Kim
ball at 10 o'clock this morning. Mr.. An
drew Lipscomb appeared as counsel for
the club and Mr.. Pugh as prosecutor. Mr..
Lipscomb moved that the information be
dismissed.
The Arguments.
He went on to argue that there could be
no sale of liquor under the statute because
the trar saction was from the club to its
members. it's component parts. who. as
members, have an interest in the stock of
the club Therefore the process was merely
a special change of holders. and could not
be a sale. because the owner of an article
cannot sell to himself. He quoted from
the English case of Graft agt. Evans to
prove that his position has been main
tanned by the courts.
Mr.. Pugn admitted that ordinarily clubs
of this character are not required to get
out license. and that the decisions gen.
orally tend to that effect. But the stat
Ute of 1888 he contended, specifically re-
quireS a license.
Judge Kimball called attention to the
eighth section. in which the word dis
pensing' occurred, which, he thought, COW
cred the case. Mr.. Lipscomb. reading the
statute, discovered that 1t required Ii
cense where liquors were dispensed. to be
drunk where sold"
Judge kimbnlrs Remarks.
There is no question in the mind of
the court" said Judge Kimball, that
club. a bona fide organization of social
character, where liquors are sold not as
the purpose of the club, but as an Incl
dent. and where members choose the man
agement by ballot and the club is carried
on strictly as a club and there is no spe
cial law requiring a license. the weight
of the authorities is in favor of your
contention. But it is my opinion that sew
eral states have endeayDred. to cover just
such cases by special statute.
Then followed discussion OF, the Mary
land laws on the subject.
The sixth section of the act CT 1S!s5 was
dissected. Mr. Lipscomb contended that it
was loosely drawn and did not strictly set
forth that a club shall procure license.
He interpreted. this law to mean that such
a club might sell liquor without license.
but If it should 80 desire 1T might apply for
a license and the excise board should act
In it's discrettom"" oo"A .
Judge Kimball was inclined ito interpret
the section thus:r There Farein the District
as is we'll known two kinds of clubs. or
the Sc one sort is organized purely
ing, the club name of which is a sham.
The other sort of club is that which has a
BILE purpose, in which. drinking is
merely am incident, Such club is that
now defendant at the bar. The section was
the judge believed, to mean that
such clubs might be given a special license
to sell liquor beyord hours or on Sundays.
But all clubs must get license. The court
on Mr.. Lipscomb's position
thus:
.I 10 ~. soo ,rb, ,,,- oI,,h 1,-o,,,1 no
foolish enough TO squander- 800 for a
license if, as you contend it can sell liquor
without license, and only apply for one to
the excise board when it should feel like
It,"
Mr.. Lipseomb answered that this might
be true, but that the section. even under
such All Interpretation, provides no PEN
atty. The court thought that the general
penalty clause of the act covered this
omission.
Attorney Thomas Contention.
Mr.. Thomas. attorney for the District,
who had come into court during Mr..
Lipsconlb's argument, then appeared in
behalf of the Information. He admitted
that clubs are not required to secure sig
natures to it's application for license, but
contended that all clubs, of both kinds.
must get a permit to sell liquor. 1t was
idle for Congress to say what it did in the
sixth section If it did not mean that all
1t in tie power of the excise board to
between. bona fide and sham
clubs and to grant to the former a permit
to go beyond hours.
Objections Overruled.
Judge kimball then overruled the objec-
tons OF the defense. If it had not been for
the sixth section, he said, there would be
very great doubt about the intention of
Congress as to Incorporated clubs Without
that section there is no question that clubs
could sell liquor without. a license. Before
that act WAS passed clubs certainly had
that privilege. But as to the uncertainty
Of the section, it was positive that Congress
meant something, and it was apparent that
the intent of the law was that the excise
board should exercise it's discretion in the
of licenses to clubs and that those
clubs entitled to licenses must apply FOR
atty clause 5ufficed to cover the sixth sec
lion.
A jury Trial Demanded.
Mr.. Lpscomb demanded jury trial, and
the case will be heard again on Monday or
Tuesday. Holmes. the actual defendant, is
under personal bonds. and Mr. Pugh said
his arrange ment.
Mr.. Lipscomb will probably renew his
demurrer before Judge Miller. He init
mated this morning that If the club should
De convicted it could avoid taking out a
license by surrendering its charter and con-
inuing without incorporating itself. The
statute, he contends, applies only to in
c rporated clubs. AS social club there
ore the members would have the right TO
,uy liquor and consume 1T on the premises
If their CLUB house.