The evening times., 1899-04-03
SUNDAY LIQUOR
Law 10 Be TESTED
Reformers Compel the Com
misSiOners to Act.
Major Sylvester Presents an Inter-
esting Report.
Legal Opinion From AttOrne.
Thomas Docs Not Definitely
Settle the Matter.

Urged by the Anti-Saloon League and
kindred organizations, the District Com
missioners have decided TO make a test case
in the Courts TO determine whether the
prohibition liquor act of March 3, 1899.
operates 10 prevent the Sunday sale of
liquor by hotels and clubs
Fully two weeks have been spent by
the Commissioners in considering the mat
ter during which time the subject has been
thoroughly gone over in board session and
also referred TO the Attorney for the Dis
trict and the Chief of Police for opinions.
The latter informed the Commissioners
that he believed some difficulty would be
experienced in enforcing the law as far as
hotels and clubs are concerned, but said
he would do all in his power 10 enforce the
law in this respect. Attorney Thomas gave
it as his legal opinion that the act of March
3 last was not intended by Congress to pre-
vent the sale of intoxicating liquors by
clubs and hotels. His opinion dealt more
with the intentions of Congress in framing
the law than with the possible chances of
prosecuting case in the courts once an
arrest had been made
terpreting the law, Commissioner Wight
recommended that test case be made and
his recommendation was Immediately
agreed 10 by his associates.
The hands OF the Commissioners we're
forced in the matter Oh March 10 last,
when several communications were feceiy-
ed at the District Building from James l..
Ewin. President OF the Anti Saloon League,
and others relative to the enforcement of
the law. The communication from the for
mer was brief and cleverly worded. Presi-
dent Ewin referred TO the act approved
March 3, 1899, and requested the Commits
sioners 20 mail him from their records
copy of their order for its enforcement.
No such order having been issued the
Commissioners Immediately took up the
matter by referring il 10 the Chief of Po
lice for consideration and report. Three
days afterwsrd Major Sylvester reported
as follows, in part:
Major SyIyester's Report.
just prior 10 my departure for weeks recre-
alton 1 directed that there should be- and there
was placed in the hands of each of the several
lieutenantS OF police copy OF the act approved
March 3, 1893. These sent TO the lieutenan;s
for their information and guidance are all
laws aud all orders.
Since my return 10 the city 7 understand the
which evolved opinion from the United
States Attorney for the District OF Columbia, 10
the effect that il i not applicable to hotels and
clubs.
For several Yeas this department has advocated
the passage G! such law as would prevent the
sale of beer by brewers TO local people for home
consumption Sundays, and am informed that
tho act approved March 3, 1859, is the outgrOwth
of such efforts.
No doubt some diiculty viii attach 10 the
nrfss ~ fita lazy far
cluls concerned, but the police department
viii do the hest it can 10 see that the provs-
iCns OF the act enforced unless there is some
question. unknown 10 this department, TO pre-
vent.
Your attention is invited 10 the penalty clause
oi the act, which does not provide foT impTison-
ment in case Of failure TO pay the fine imposed
This. however, may be covered by the act of
July -, 1852 relating TO default in the pay
meEt oi fines
President Ewin was then notified by the
Commissioners that they bad issued no
special order in connection with the new
law, but that the superintendent would
enforce the law Just as he does all other
laws-to the best of his ability
Attorney s. T. Thomas was then asked
10 render an opinion stating whether, If
an arrest were made under the law and
the evidence is sufficient TO prove the
charge the case could be successfully prose-
cuted. Attorney Thomas replied as fol-
lows:
Opinion of Attorney Thomas.
The question is whether the act of March 8,
1889, repeals the provisions in regard 10 the sale
of intoxicating liquors by hotels and duly incor-
porated clubs, contained in the act of March 8,
1888, regarding the sale of intoxicating liquors
in the District If Columbia
If the act of March 3. 1892 has the effect OF
assaif ifaerf ha aqf rf 80
hotels and clubs, il is by implication, and such
repeals not favored by the courts. II the act
Of March 3, 1892. the only legislation on the
subject, there would then be no question but thar
its effect would be to prohibit absolutely the
sale Of Intoxicating liquors on Sunday, but, be-
ing in pari meteria with the act OF March 3,
1873, ii is 10 be read with il, and repeals il
only so far as the provisions Of the earlier act
in conflict with it.
No mention of the act of 1893 is made in the
act Of 1882 There is, therefore, no expressed
intention 10 repeal or alter the earlier act, ex-
cept as to brewers and dstilers. Again, the
penalties described 10y the two acts entirely
different. BY the latter act only fine is i'm
posed, whereas the earlier act imposed both
fine and imprisonment, and in addition. for
second conviction, iorfeits the offenders il
cense This is significant showing that the
act of 1899 was not intended TO sIperscde or re-
peal any of the provisions Of the act of 1898.
ID is not TO be supposed that in regulating
the liquor traffic in this District Congress in
tended by the act OF March 5, 1899, to deal less
stringently with infractions of the provisions of
the act Of March 3. 1893. in regard TO the sale
Oi intoxicating liquors, than therein provided
tpr.
For these reasons my opinion is Congress did
not intend by the act of March 3, 1899, 10 pre-
vent the sale of intoxicating liquors Sunday
by hotels and clubs.
The Commissioners View.
The Commissioners, in view of this Opin-
ion, unanimously agreed upon the follow
ing endorsement:
The question 10 whether the law referred
TO in this case should be enforced, does not ap-
pear 10 be very definitely settled by the attor-
ney's opinion, inasmuch he bases it on what
the intention of Congress may may not be
supposed to be. II seems 10 me that it is rather
a matter of the Interpretation of the law as it
stands, and hinges the legal A9int he
refers to as TO whether not it refers to for
mer laws. As there will always be difference
of opinion, probably this point, my i'm
preston is that the only way to settle the mat
ter satisfactorily is to make test case.
The test case will be made.