Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-03-21
THE D0NNELLY CASE
Argued Again Today Before tn.
K1oise Board.
R. MArPIAlIY'S PLEA FOR 4 LICENSE
Urged That the Original Decision
aNas Final.
=.
OTHER ,DIsTRIcT NEWS

The postpt ned hearing of the Donnelly
liquor case took place this afternoon before
the excise board. Messrs. Nathaniel VIII
son and John W. Thompson represented the
opposition, while Messrs. w. F. Mattingly
ard F. E. Alexander looked after tho In
terests Of Donnelly.
Chairman johnson read statement OF
the case. and Mr.. Mattingly followed. He
Maintained that the question was taken
up and carefully considered by the board
Of Commissioners when they constituted
the excise board, and having once been
determined could not be taken up every
year and gone over again. He had looked
into the case with more than an attorneys
interest. From the statement of ex-Sec-
rotary Foster. he had heen led to believe
that the. place kept 10y Donnelly was a
lew saloon. He had visited the place and
found neat, clean, inviting grocery store.
where liquors were sold in connection with
the legitimate sale of groceries. The place
was not Objectionable in any sense of the
term. Touching TIE arrest of Donnelly, Mr..
Mattingly said even were the charges true
he had abanC cned the bar room business
years ago, and man certainly had a
right to repent
The fight had been going on between him
and Mr.. Thompson for years. Some years
Donnelly received Il license ard some
tied his license fee. Mr.. Mattingly read
lengthy petition from residents and prop
erty holders in the immediate nesghbor-
hood setting forth that the place was not
objectionable. A large majority of the
sigIers were residents of 14th street.
Never without a License.
Mr.. Matting!y exhibited a receipt from
the collector of taxes, dated October IS.
1892. The time the applicant made his de-
nOSjt a 1inan he W. m o.
ment. Mr.. Mattinely maintained, that DON
nelly was without a license. Moreover, he
read a letter from Secretary Tindall. dated
February g. 1893. notifying Donnelly of
| a hearing that the Commissioners would
give him on the nth instant. Later he was
Informed that hearing would he given
until ponnelly had paid the fine that ac-
cumulated and stood against him. There
was no reason in the world, he said, why
Mr. Donnelly should pay these fines unless
he had assurances that his license would
be granted. An opinion since then, said
Mr.. Mattingly, demonstrated that the court
had no jurisdiction and the fines were IL
legally collected. A few days after the
fines We're paid the act of Congress was
passed which required all persons hold
Ing licenses to take out License under
the new lay. liz
The Co,.rk Of Appeals shortly afterward
held that licenses issued before the pa ssase
OF the act were good. After the passage OF
the act the Commissioners notified all per-
sens having applications pending 20 take
out licenses under the new act. March II.
lS9J. Donnelly was served with a notice to
take out a ,new license. and that his pend
Ing Application would not be further con-
sidered unless new application was filed.
On the 9th Of March ano.her notice was
served on Donnelly. which. Mr. Mattinyly
argued, recognized that D1nnelIy had a
pending application at the time. The ques-
ton whether a pending application was
equivalent to having 4 license was ex-
~ : nd ioI
IN Donne!ly's favor.
A Favorable OMcial Opinion.
Mr.. Matting1y read an opirion from the
attorney for the, District, in which 1t was
held that Donnelly was eligible to a license.
Even had the excise board rejected his ap-
plication. ,Donneliy could never have been
| prosecuted for selling without license, be-
cause his license fee was still withheld 1t
was not proper that Donnelly should call
and get his deposit, bit it was clearly the
duty of the Commits sionnrs to send the do
| post to Donnelly. Mr.. T.. +. Alexander
IVES sworn. He was counsel witt. Mr.
Mills Deane IN the case. and at :he time of
the passage of the law of March 3, 1891
Donne!ly's case was still pending. It was
upon his advice that the fines were paid
because he had received an intima.icn tina;
as long as these fin IS remained unpaid his
case could not be considered.
Upon crOSs-examnation Mr. Alexander
said Commissioner Ross, about a week. lie
fore the act of Marcn 3, 1894, was passed
had minated to him that the case OF Don.
nelly would not be considered until the
! Judgment of the court on the fines was
| passed.
License Clerk Williams testified to send.
| ing notice to Donnelly after the passage
| Of the act of March 3. 1884
Mr.. Ross a Witness.
Mr.. Mattingly called Commissioner Ross
as witness. Mr.. Ross testified to being q
| member of the excise board in 1894. AT
| that time the matter of the nearness to the
Emerson Institute and the question of a
| previous license was raised against Don
nelly and license was afterward granted
| In reply to a question from LAWYER VIII
| son, Mr.. Ross stated that If he were per-
| mitted to examine the papers a moment he
| could tell upon what consideration the
! license was granted. 1t was his recollec-
| ton that in view of the fact that he had a
| license the previous year the Commissioners
granted the license. He could not recall
| the letters that had been written in the
case.
Replying to a question from Mr. MATING.
| ly. he said notice to applicants to call and
get a new license under the act of March
3, 1894. was indicative Of a pending appli-
| cation for license.
Messenger James Harris, who was con-
| nected with the excise board at the time
| the Commissioners constituted the board
! testified that the Commissioners were late
! at office one day in the early spring of
| 1893. He was called to the telephone and
| told to notify the police not to interfere
! with the applicant. The Commissioners
| gave him the notice, and he called to Lieut.
| Am;ss and told him the Commissioners or.
dered him not to Interfere with Donnelly
| until further orders.
In Opposition to Donnelly.
| The applicant rested his case and Attor-
| ney Wilson for the protestants followed.
The law of March 3. 1894. was passed at
the earnest solicitation of the Commits
sioners. who fpointed out the necessity for
new leg;slattox by citing the case of Don
| nelly. DonnesHs place was within 400
| feet Of a sch95l house. There was no de-
| nying that. Ehe question was whether
| Donnelly had q license at the time of the
| passage Of tina law. The license granted
after the passage Of that act was based
! uron misunderstanding He did not adj
| init that an applicant could be considered
| licensed who was not actually licensed.
| Nor did he think a pending applica tion
could be considered q license
He read the notice of re lection nv the
| Commissioners, which. he maintained, ter
minated the license. The mere sending OF
notice to Donnelly to come get his money
| did not change the fact that the license
| had been rejected. A pending application
| could not be considered license, Mr.
Wilson was still speaking when The Stars
report closed