The times., 1898-10-28
POWERS OF EXCISE BOARD
Important Opinion in the Case
of Saloon-Keeper Seller
Mr.. THoMAs's RULING
Jurisdiction of the Board - Cannot
Extend Licenses After Application
Has Been Denied - Regulations
Governing the Same Approved by
the Commissioners.

An important Spinion was yesterday
rendered by S. T. Thomas. the attorney
for the District, in the case of John c.
Seller, whose application for the renewal
of a barroom license at No. 40S l. Street
northeast was rejected by the Excise
Board recently. In his opinion the attor-
ney rules that the Excise Board is with
out Jurisdiction to allow the applicant for
liquor license 10 continue his business
after his application has been denied.
The Commissioners recently made in
quiries into the matter and elected from
J. Harrison johnson, the chairman of the
Excise Board the statement that the re-
lection of Sellers application was to have
taken effect at midnight of April 16 last.
but on that date the time for the closing
was indefinitely postponed because of the
fact that two policemen who had made
charges against the conduct of the place
were before the police trial board. The
charges against the officers were disposed
of a few weeks ago and Seller was noti-
fled by the Excise Board of the resembling
of the order allowing him to continue his
puSiiitSS tSihE'oi al ny h' itAtei Va -'iA =
Johnson was referred by the Commissions
ers to Attorney Thomas, and his opinion,
rendered yesterday. and approved by the
Commissioners. is in part as follows:
"The letter of Chairman Johnson. of the
Excise Board relative to the rejected ap
plication of John c. Seller for barroom
license at No. 403 l. Street northeast,
yrh rafa fn ms ODiuipu
whether the Excise Board may allow an
applicant for a liquor license. who has
had license the previous year. to con-
tinue his business after his application
has been denied and the applicant notified
and the time allowed him 10 close his
business expired, and whether he is liable
for selling liquor without 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 or Columbia q
Stat. 561, 1t is provided, That all appli-
cants who have had a license during the
preceding year shall Apply Tor a renewal
of such license on or before November
of each license year. and shall be per-
mitted to continue business until the Ii
cense shall be granted or refused by the
Excise Board
"on March l6, 1893, the Commissioners.
who were then acting as the excise board,
adopted regulations governing the issuing
of liquor licenses, among others. one
known as section l3, which provides that
when an application for liquor license
is made by person who was licensed the
previous year, and the application is re-
jected by the board, the clerk of the
board shall transmit 10 the major OF
police a notice to be served on the lp-
plicant in person, or left at his place of
business, to the effect that his applica-
tion for license was rejected on a GER
tain day. and that after deducting pro-
portionate amount of the license fee.
the balance would be refunded. and that
the rejection of the application termi-
mated all rights of the applicant to con-
tinue his business forty-eight hours
after midnight of the day of serving the
notice The excise board have since
changed this rule so as to continue his
business from and after midnight of a
designated day.
This Is as liberal concession as the
board is permitted to make in order 10
enable 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 thls
case from April l6 to October %. 1898.
without intending to reconsider the ap-
plication If on April 16 the Excise Board
had rescinded its order of February i,
refusing Seller a license, and directing
him to close his saloon, the application
would then have been before 1t for FUR
ther reconsideration. 1t was Irregular to
extend the time for closing the saloon
without reviving the application by re-
voking the order refusing a license.
My opinion is. the Excise Board Is
without Jurisdiction to allow an applicant
for a liquor license to continue his bust
ness after his application has been denied.
1t is only fair. however. to the Excise
Board TO say that il has been the practice
since the act of 1883 went into effect-a
practice which began with the Commits
sioners-to give an applicant for license
time after his application is rejected TO
close up his business.
Under the circumstances of this case,
! think prosecutions would lie against
Seller for selling liquor between April ID
and October %, 1898.