The morning times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1897, 1895-10-07
EXCISE Law and HOTELS
Debate Of Provision Respecting
Churches and Schools.
FOUR HUNDRED FEET LIMIT
Opinions of Prominent Attorneys Filed
In Which the Position Taken by
District Attorney Thomas rs As
sailcd-COntentiOn That Hotel Bars
AreNot Exempt From Requirement.

The question that mas arisen for tn
| judgment of the excise board, and for tn
courts in the event of an appeal. with re
J spect to the application to hotels of the Law
regulating the granting of barroom licenses
is assuming an interesting phase, and TIN
| decision viii settle a most important point
The issue involved il whether or no
hotels are exempted from the clause pro
| hibting the granting of licenses for ba
| located within 400 feet of a school or hous,
OF worship. 1t arose in the consideration
| of the application of William T. whclaI
for bar license at the Virginia House
originally known as the Portner Flats
on Seventh street southwest.
The attorney for the District, to whom
the case was referred, holds that the pro
hibitory clause does not apply to estab
bshed hotels To offset this opinion,
Attorney Shoemaker, in behalf of the Anti
Saloon League, on Saturday filed an opinion
from each OF five attorneys who say ther,
is no exemption for hotels. These attorneys
are Messrs. W. L. Cole, J. j. Darlington, j
Altheus Johnson, W. W MILAN, and A udrc "
Wilson.
Should the views held by these gentlemen
be correct, all hotels not established prior
to the passage OF the amended law. are
placed upon an equality with the ordinary
barroom in all particulars involved in the
procuring of liquor license
MIR. w. L. COLES VIEWS.
The opinions filed are each quite lengthy,
the whole subject being debated.
Mr.. Cole says: II have examined the la "
barroom license may be granted to a hotel
when the same is within four hundred feet
of a public school, private school or house
OF religious worship.
The only clause i'll the statute which could
have the effect OF excluding a hotel from
the provisions of the sixteenth section is
found in section 6. and provides that any
established hotel or tavern having twenty
chambers for lodging guests shall always
have the right to obtain for itself a license
for barroom, on complying with the pro-
visions of this act, and the petition in such
case shall be made by the owner or lessee OF
such hotel or tavern.
The excise board is given wide discre-
ton. Ii is made the Ultimate Judge OF
the character and fitness of the applicant,
the propriety of locating a saIoon in par
ticular place or neghborhood. and all other
facts and circumstances affecting the pro-
priety OF granting or refusing license in
each particular case.
There is but one exception, and that
'isin respect to ahotelortayern. Itismanda-
tory upon the board to grant a blrroom
license to hotel upon the owner or lessee
complying with the provisions of the act
1T does not seem 10 be the purpose or er-
feet Of this proviso to excuse the applicant
for a barroom license for u hotel from CON-
plying with all or either OF the provisions
OF the act
The sixteenth section places a reStric-
tionupon the granting Of license generally by
providing. that license for any of the pur-
poses specified shah not be granted to any
personto conduct such business, that istosell
Intoxicating liquors either at wholesale or
retail within four hundred feet OF a public
st-hoolhouse. private school or house of reliS-
ious worship
There is no reservation or proviso inciud-
ing hotel from the Inhibition.
WHAT CONGRESS OMITTED TO DO
Had it been the intention of Congress
TO except hotels from the operation of this
section, some proviso to that effect should
have been incorporated
There seems TO he no reason for going
back to the fifth section for a proyiso in
order to modify section sixteen. | know
OF no rIle of construction that would dauthor-
ize or require that proviso TO be attached
to section sixteen to modify a provision
already plain and consistent with all
other portions of the act
I'm addition to the exceptions contained
in the original act. the amendment exoepts
such places of business as were located
and licensed at the date of the original act,
and provides that no hotel thereafter es-
tablished should be licensed If IT has less
than twenty-five rooms for guests. LIDO
- tnf, Hnfpntmput affect
the meaning of the original act except
in the pa articulars in which it is expressly
modified by it"
Mr.. Darlington is understood to have
an opinion similar to that of Mr..
Cole. He says:
II have sought in vain to find anything in
the act which can be construed as indicating
TO .distiryuisi them from other barrooms,
or TO except them from any OF the PROVISIONS
of the act in any other particular.
THE purposes specified in the act are
for the sale of liquor in wholesale estab-
in ordinary b3rrooms. in hotels
and taverns and by druggists and apothe-
ca ries> Section sixteen in terms prohibits
license for any of these purposes within the
designated distance of school houses ara
churches.
Il understand 1t to he claimed that the
ing in this particular to hotels and tav-
erns on the ground that taverns are IA
vored by common law, and that, therefore,
statutes concerning them shan be construed
in such manner as shall be favorable to
them.
COMMON LAW FAveRS.
The favor shown to taverns by common
law is limited to single circumstance,
which circumstance is the result of a rig
orous liability imposed upon them"
After citing in what respect taverns are
favored by the common law, and why, Mr..
Darlington continues;
I'm other words. it was deemed a hard
ship to require innkeepers to entertain all
guests without giving them some security
for their charges, and they were given a
lien upon the cbattels Of their guests to
insure payment
ut is difficult to see what bearing this
incident of the common law can have upon
the Interpretation of the exercise of the
police power, in the enactment of excise
laws and the protection of school children
and persons attending religious worship
from the. annoyance and dangers incident
to the propinquity of barrooms.
'.Unless it can be said that no section
of the original act makes provisions for
licenses for the purpose of hotels and
taverns, it is impossible to see how appli-
cants for hotel barroom license can escape
the requirement imposed"
The decision in the case may not be
reached sefore the close of the present
license year The conclusion is awaited
with much interest
r