Evening star., 1898-10-27
CUSTOM IS ILLEGAL
saloonkeeper Cannot Sell Liquor After
Application is Rejected.
OPINION OF DISTRICTS ATTORNEY
Excise Board Without Jurisdiction
to Permit 1t to Be Done.
LAW WILL BE OBSERVED

In the case of John c. Seller. whose ap-
phcation for a renewal of a bar room
liquor license at 403 l. street northeast was
rejected some months ago by the excise
beard. the attorney for the District has
rendered to the Con- miss ont RS a most i'm
ptrtant opinion, which declares to be llle-
gal practice which has been followed for
years in such matters. The opinion of the
Districts legal adviser is that the excise
board is without jurisdiction to allow an
applicant for a liqUcr license to continue
lis business after lis applicatio has been
denied.
Replying to a recent inquiry of Commits
siCneT Wight, Mr.. J. Harrison johnson.
chairman of the excise board. explained
thGt the rejection of Sellers application
was to have taken effect at midnight of
April IL, 1895, but on that day the time for
closing .he place was indefinitely post
oned. owing TO tn po'ice boards trial of
two officers who had made charges against
the conduct of Seller saloon. That case
as disposed of a few weeks ago, when
Seller was notified by the excise board of
the resembling of the order allowing him
to continue his business. He was also no
titled that his application for a license had
teen denied, and was given until the 18th
instant to close up lis business. Mr.. John
that he excise beard had acted in the
matter as it d d mrre,y that all parties in
interest NIGH be fairy and justly treated.
Attorney Thomas Opinion.
The letter of Mr.. johnson was then re-
ferred by the Commissioners to Mr.. S. T
Thomas. the attorney for the District for
an opinion in the matter, and it is as fol-
lows:
The letter of Chairman johnson of the
excise board relative to the rejected ap-
pliCation of John c. Seller for a bar room
license at 403 L street northeast. which
you referred to me for opinion whether the
excise board may allow an applicant for
liquor license, who has had a license
the previous year. to continue his business
after his application has been denied and
the applicant notified and the time allowed
him to close his business has expired. and
whether he is liable for selling liquor with
out a license. has been duly considered.
by section II of the act of Congress
approved March 3. 1893. entitled An act
to regulate the sale of intoxicating liquors
in the District of Columbia % Stat. 567
it is provided. That all applicants who
have had a license during the preceding
year shall apply for a renewal of such
license on or before November l of each
license year. and shall be permitted to
continue business until the license shall be
granted or refused by the excise board
ION March 16, 1893, the Commissioners
who were then acting as the excise board,
adopted regulations governing the issuing
of liquor licenses, among others, one known
section IL. which provides that when an
application for liquor license is made by
a person who was licensed the previous
year. and the application Is rejected by
the board, the clerk of the board shall
transmit to the major of police a notice
to be served on the applicant in person.
or left at his place of business. to the eff
feet that his application for license was
rejected on certain day, and that after
deducting a prOpOrtionate amount of the
license fee. the balance would be refunded
and that the rejection of the application
terminated all rights of the applicant to
continue his business forthy-eight hours
after midnight of the day of serving the
notice. Thu excise board have since chang
sd this rule so as to terminate the right of
the applicant to continue his business from
and after midnight of a designated day.
Without jurisdiction.
This is as liberal concession as the
board is permitted to make in order to en-
able an applicant who is refused a license
to dispose of his stock without unnecessary
loss.
Il think the excise board was without
jurisdiction to extend the time in this case
from April 10 to October -, 1898. without
intending to reconsider the application. If
on April 16 the excise board had rescnded
license, and directing him to close his sa-
loon, the application would then have been
before it for further reconsideration. 1t
was irregular to extend the time for closing
the saloon without reviving the application
by revOking the order refusing a license.
My opinion is, the excise board is with
out jurisdiction 20 allow an applicant for a
liquor license to continue his business after
his application has been denied. 1t is only
falT, however, to the excise board to say
that ii has been the practice since the act
OF 1893 went into effect-a practice which
began with the COmmissoners-to give an
applicant for license time after his appli-
cation is rejected to close up his business
nder the circumstances of this case
think prosecutions would lie against Seller
for selling liquor between April IL and Oc-
tOber 20, 1895
Their attorneys opinion has been approy-
ed by the Commissioners, and upon the
motion of Mr.. Wight will be forwarded to
the excise board with the request that
hereafter the board will conform to the
opinion.
TWO MURDERS AND A. SUICIDE.
Ira