The evening times., 1896-04-17

EX-Represcntative Hempbill made an ar,
gunient today before the District Commits
siuner in behalf of the old claims OF tenants
whose rights are alleged to have been
ignored AT the time OF the destruction OF the
old Liberty Market, taking the ground that
the municipality and not GOV. Shepherd or
the board OF pubhc works was responsible
for the resultant damage.
Mr. Hemphill put iii the plea that for any
act of the municipal authorities, whether IN
the matter of damage To public or private
interests, the District must be held account
able.
To this President Ross excepted, stating
that the order OF any public Official that Is
in contravention OF the rights OF property
holders, renders the individual responsible
for the consequences. The attorneys who
first had charge OF the claims, he said had
taken the correct view when suit was
brought against Gov. Shepherd himself
THE SAME CIRCUMSTANCES.
The argument made by Nj. Hemphill was
based upon the same statement OF Grcunl-
stances that formed the basis OF the suit
against Allegheny, Pa, for the damages
| resulting from the strike OF lsiI'
He insists that the municipality Is re-
sponsiile for the failure of It's OFFICERS 10
protect the citizen, as well as ior the IN
| luTN 10 ih'y w
| through the execution OF an orueF ioi
which there is no law
Attorney Nathaniel Wilson filed with the
excise board today lengthy brlel, III
behalf of the contention OF Messrs. D. F..
| Thompson, U, II. Painter and Others, aga INST
| the issuance of a license TO James u. DOH
| nelly. at No. S2S Fourteenth street north
west, in which he states three questions
| raised By Donnelly's application.
tt.ar N
| ing of the application is prohibited by law;
| the second. in case the affirmative action
| is not prohibited hut rests in the discretion
| nr the board is Dunnely's place fit
place and Donncly n fit person To be il
| ccnsed? Third. in case lie Is untitled 10 re-
| Ceive license. is tie board stiii bound IL
| issue it merely because he tad license last
wear or the year before granted by a former
| board?
THE DoNNELLY CASE.
| Mr.. wilson proceeds then TO say that L
| is not pretended as a matter of fact that
! ON the day apecificd in the statute, March
| g. 1898 Donuely was in possession OF i
| license or that it had been declded d 10 give
| Il to him, but, il is claimed. in his iu'
| terest hat the act does not require a per
| son to have n written license, IN ordef
| to conform-that although the term II
| eensed'' is used. il would be sufficient
1
re,,din. an application for license
| Mr. Wilson submits that such a con-
struction, which, by the way, is held by
the board, and governs in their considerd'
| ton of cases, is not only In violation OF well
settled rules for constituting statutes, but is
obviously and conspicuously wrong and un'
| authorized, and, indeed, wholly unreasona
| BILE. Neither the language nor the policy
OF the law, he says, would justify the as
sumption that a mere application for IL
cense should have the same effect as an
| actual license.
with Mr.. Wilson'S conclusion estao
| Ished by way of a precedent, 1t is eridef
| a radical change in the policy of the b'art
| would be necessary, since applications To-
renewals OF license prior to November
serve as guarantee against interference
by the police with the'sale OF liquor as long
as his case remains undetermined by th'
board. months sometimes eiapsins beior'
the application is rejected. 1t is the sam
way with those which for some reason ar
held up. but are afterwards granted.