Evening star., 1899-04-03
WILL TEST THE LAW
Sunday Sales Of Liquor by Clubs and
Hotels.
JUDICIAL DECISION 10 Be OBTAINED
Opinion by Attorney Thomas Re-
specting Late Enactment.
QUESTION OF REP EA L

The District Commissioners today deter
mined to direct the police authorities to Sc
cure decision from the courts as to
whether the act of March g. 1899, to pre-
vent the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sun
day in the District prohibits hotels and
clubs from dispensing liquors on that day.
AS stated in The Star several days ago,
the attorney for the District, to whom the
Commissioners ~@ferred the question rem
dered opinion in which ne held that the
act was not intended by Congress to pre-
vent the sale of intoxicating liquors on
Sunday by hotels and clubs, such establish
ments being authorized to dispense liquors
that day by the act of March ), 1893.
1t will be recalled that the .Anti-Saloon
League and other organizations and persons
brought the matter to the attention of the
Commissioners soon after the recent act be-
came law. asking that the hotels and clubs
be prohibited from selling liquors on Sun
day. Chief Sylvester of the police force d
rected that copies of the act be furnished
the men for their information and guild
ance, but subsequently called attention to
the fact that MIR. Henry E. Davis the
United States district attorney, expressed
the opinion that the act of last month is
not applicable to hotels and clubs. Chief
Sylvester stated, however, that, while some
difficulty would attach to the enforcement
OF the act so far as hotels and clubs are
what 1t could to enforce it.
Attorneys Opinion.
Finally the question was referred TO the
attorney Of the District by the Commits
sioners, with the request for his opinion
whether, if an arrest is made under the
act and the evidence is sufficient to prove
the charge, the case can be successfully
prosecuted In reply the attorney rendered
the following opinion:
The question is whether the act of March
s. 1893, repeats the provisions in regard to
the sale of intoxicating liquors by hotels
and duly Incorporated clubs contained in
the act of March 3, 1893 regulating the
sale of Intoxicating liquors in the District
of Columbia.
IF the act of March 3, 1899 has the eff
feet of repeating the act of March 3, 1893
in regard to hotels and clubs. it is by impli-
cation, and such repeals are not favored by
the courts. If the act of March 3, 1899,
was the only legislation on the subject,
there would then be no question but that
its effect would be to prohibit absolutely
the sale of Intoxicating liquors on Sunday,
but being in pari meteria with the act of
March B. 1888, 1t is to be read with it, and
repeals 1t only so far as the provisions of
the earlier act are in conflict with 1t.
No mention of the act of 1893 is made
in the act OF 1899. There is, therefore, no
expressed intention to repeal or alter the
earlier act, except as to brewers and dis
tllers. Again. the penalties described by
the two acts are entirely different. By
the later act only a fine is imposed. where
as the earlier act imposes both a fine and
Imprisonment and, in addition, for a sec
ond conviction, forfeits the offenders IL
cense. This is significant as showing
that the act OF 1899 was not intended to
! supersede or repeal any of the provisions
of the act of 1893.
1T is not to be supposed that in reg
ulating the liquor traffic in this District
Congress intended by the act of March 3,
1899. to deal less stringently with infrac-
tions of the provisions of the act of March
3, 1893, in regard to the sale of intoxi-
eating liquors, than therein provided for.
For these reasons my opinion is Con-
gress did not intend by the act of March
g. 1899, to prevent the sale of intoxicating
liquors on Sunday by hotels and clubs
Commissioner Wight's Endorsement.
In his Endorsement on the attorneys opin-
ion, Commissioner Wight advised that
test case be brought. "The question" he
said, ''as to whether the law referred to in
this case should be enforced does not ap-
pear to be very definitely settled by the at
torney's opinion inasmuch as he bases 1t
on what the intention of Congress may or
may not be supposed to be. 1T Sc ems to me
that il is rather matter of the interpre-
tation of the law ii stands, and hinges
more on the legal point he refers to as to
whether or not it repeals former laws. AS
there will always be a difference of opin-
sion is that the only way to settle the mat
ter satisfactorily is to make a test case
1t is understood the police department
VIII be directed to cooperate with the pros
ecuting attorney for the purpose of making
the test case proposed at an early date.