Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1898-06-17
OLD LAW STILL IN FORCE
Statute Prohibiting Sales of Liquor Ia
Soldiers in the District.
OpipiOn by Attorney Thomas In
dOrsed by Commissioners and
Police Given Instructions.

| The laws passed during the late war pro-
hbiting the sale of liquor to soldiers are
, held by the attorney for the District to re-
main in full force here, and the District
Commissioners in approving that opinion,
have directed the local authorities to en-
force the laws.
A question as to whether these laws are
still operative in the District having been
raised, heretofore stated in The Star,
the Commissioners referred the matter to
their attorney, MIR. S. T. Thomas, and he
forwarded his opinion to them yesterday
afternoon. Mr. Thomas says that sections
1iS1. 1852 and 11S3 OF the Revised Statutes
of the United States relating to the Dis
trict of Columbia. brought forward from
the acts of August 3, 1851. and July IA,
1862, prohibit the sale of liquor to soldiers
and volunteers in the service of the United
States or TO any person wearing the uni
form of such soldier or volunteer. under a
penalty of so for each offense, and the for
fixture of license if the offender is a Ii
censed dealer.
Intent of Congress.
In support of this proposition the at
torney explains that Congress, in
the act approved March 3. 1893.
regulating the sale of intoxicating
liquors. declared in the concluding section
that the same should be in lieu of, and as
substitute for, all laws and regulations
in the District in regard to the sale of dis
titled and fermented liquors, and that all
laws or parts of laws inconsistent with
said act. except such laws as We're applica
BILE to the sale of liquors within one mile of
the Soldiers Home. be repealed, and the
question is whether by this act the sections
of the Revised Statutes referred to are re-
pealed.
The District law officer states that the
sections of the Revised Statutes mentioned
by him refer TO a particular class OF per-
sons. namely. soldiers or volunteers in the
service of the United States. and constitute
what is known in law particular regu-
lation of the liquor traffic. whereas the act
of 1899 was intended to regulate the general
traffic in intoxicating liquors and to require
persons dealing in them to have a license
TO do So Those sectors are not necessari-
~ in conflict with the act of March 1893
says MIR Thomas. and. therefore, are not
int nded as q substitute for them. He
thinks at if the effect of section II OF the
act of 1882 was to repeal sections 11S1. 11S2
and 11S1 of the Revised Statutes it is an
implied repeal. and such repeats are not
favored by the courts. The implication of
an intention to repeal must necessarily flow
from the language used. he explains. and
must disclose such a repugnancy between
the provisions of the later and the earlier
law IS 20 be irrecorCflable by any fair or
ing the evident intent and meaning would
find for it a reasonable field of operation
for the later law, preserving at the same
time the force of the earlier and constru-
ing both together in harmony with the
whole course of legislation upon the sub
ject.
The Apparent Conflict.
Mr.. Thomas believes that the conflict be-
tween the act of 1898 and the sections of
the Revised Statutes referred to is more
fancied than real. He says the objects are
different. and he calls attention to the gen.
eral rule of construction, that special
statute providing for a particular case or
class of cases is not repealed by subse-
quent statute, general in its terms, pro-
visions and applications. unless the intent
to repeal or alter is manifest.
I'm my judgment" concludes Mr.. Thorn
as. there is no such clearly expressed in
tention in the general provisions of the act
of 1893 will control the specific provis-
ions of the Revised Statutes prohibiting the
sale of Intoxicating liquors to soldiers. My
opinion is sections ISL. 1872 and 1888 of
the Revised Statutes of the United States
relating to the District, are in full force"
Dissenting Opinion.
Mr.. Frank p. Madigan, who represents
the interests of local brewers, and who is
attorney for them. told Star reporter this
morning that he thought Attorney Thomas
as he is concerned, he is willing to have
the question of the validity of the law
tested. Under the sixth section OF the act
of 1855 he said. the law expressly says
that the license issued in accordance with
this act 1S93) liquor shall be sold or
disposed of to certain persons, and prohibits
The sale on certain days. The classes of
persons the sa1oonkeeper is prohibited from
selling TO are minors and others, the act
reading:
That under the license issued in accord
aEce with this act, no intoxicating liquors
shall be sod, given or in any way disposed
OF TO any minor CT intoxicated person. or
to an habitual drunkard, nor to any person
WHO is in the habit of becoming intoxicated
If such persons wife. mother daughter
shall in writing request that the saloon
keeper shall not sell to such person above
age of sixteen years, or between l. o'clock
midnight and o'clock in the morning
during which last named hours and on Sun
days every bar room and other place where
intoxicating liquors are sold shall be kept
closed and 10 Intoxicating liquor sold.''
Inclusion Works Exclusion.
Now he continued, under the we'll
known maxim applying to the interpretation
of statutes the inclusion of the one is the ex-
clusion of the other. There is no inhibition
against the sale to soldiers or volunteers
i'll uniform enumerated in this section, and
for that reason this prohibition cannot APP
cordanCe with this act. This position is
even made more manifest by Congress
when, having the subject matter of the in
cidental regulations of places securing a
license, it fails to attach to such license
such prohibition as is now attempted, when
by section u of the act of 1893 it shows in
as plain terms as language can make it,
that the act of 1893 was to be taken in
lieu of and as a substitute for all existing
laws and regulations on this subject.
1T certainly cannot be said that the sale
to soldiers and volunteers was not a law of
the District at the time this matter was
being considered, and a general law cover
ing the whole subject matter was passed
by Congress. 1t was "a law and no can
deny that when Congress used the express
sion all laws and regulations 1t wiped
from the statute books every law, special
or general, in relation to the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors.
Our soldiers should be privileged and
classed as others, as the act of 1893 intend
ed If anything, they should be more
privileged than others at this time
Awaiting Official Notice.
A visit by Star reporter this afternoon