The times., 1899-04-04
THE SUNDAY LIQUOR
Law TO Be TESTED
The Commissioners Decide Up
Oh Positive Action.
Opinions From Major Sylvester and
Attorney S. I. Thomas.
Ministers Agree to Cease Their Agi-
tatiou Against sunday Concerts
Other District News.

the District Commissioners declueu yeslSi-
day to test the Sunday prohibition law en-
acted March 9, 1899, for the purpose OF de-
termning whether il operates TO prevent
the sale OF liquor in hotels and by duly au-
thorized clubs.
The law is brief, and was only intended
TO stop the sale of Sunday beer in kegs by
breweries, which practice had become the
source of considerable peace disturbing on
reservations, and was exceedingly obnox-
ious to churchgoers in the Southeast and
other parts of the city. The bill was
framed to apply to brewers, or distiiiers,
but during the debate on the foo. OF the
House during the closing hours of Con-
gress Mr.. Grosyenor of Ohio secured the
insertion of the words ''or other person or
corporation in the District of Co umba."
TINS gave the bill more sweeping charIc
ter, and although intended to operate only
against single nuisance, it became, by ac-
cIdent. as il were. worded in such man
ner that anti-saloon supporters in all parts
of the city hailed it with delight and began
to hold jubilee meetings.
1t then that the matter was forced
upon the attention of the District Commis-
sloDers and kept before them in suca u
manner that the result was their action o.
board session, and was also referred 10 the
Attorney for the District and the Chief of
Police for opinions.
Major Sylvester informed the Commits
sioners that great difficulty would un-
doubtedly be experienced in enforcing the
law as far as hotels and clubs were con-
cerned. Attorney Thomas expressed him
self as believing that the act of March 3
last was not intended by Congress II pre-
. nj ha sail nf aI,,I he I,,n L.
on Sunday. His opinion dealt more with
the intentions of the trainers of the Law
than with the possible chance of prcsscut-
ing q case in court after an arrest had once
been made. This difference of opinion in
duced Commissioner Wight TO recommend
that a test case be made, and his recon-
mendation was Immediately adopted by his
associates.
Major Sylvester. Chief Of Police. was the
first official asked to make a report on the
subject, and he sent the following com
munication TO the Commissioners:
Just prior to my departure for a weeks recrea-
iion | directed that there should be- and there
was, placed III the hands OF each of the several
heutenants of police copy Of the act approved
March 3, 1899. These sent to the lentcnanis
for their information and guidance as are all
new laws and all orders.
Since my return 10 the city / understand that
the new law has provoked some legal discussion
which evolved an opinion from the United States
Attorney for the District OF Columbia 10 The
effect that it is not applicable TO hotels and
clubs. For several years this department has
advocated the passage M such a iau as would
prevent the sale OF beer by brewers local peo-
PIE Tor home consumption sundays. and am
informed that the act approved Nlart! 3. lSS1 is
the ouigrovth of such efforts. No doubt some
difficulty Will attach 10 the enforcement OF the
law. 80 lar hotels and clubs are concerned;
but the Police Department viii DO the best it
can 10 sec that the provisions OF the ACT are eI-
forced, unless there Is some question unhnown to
this department to prevent.
Your attention Is invited to the penalty clause
OF the act, which does not provide Tor iinprison-
ment in case Of failure to pay the fine imposed
This, however, may be covered by the act of
july 23, le''2- relating to default in The payment
OF fines
Attorney S. T. Thomas was then asked
TO render an opinion, stating whether If
an arrest were made under the law, and
the evidence were sufficient 10 prove the
| charges, the case could be successfully
prosecuted. The opinion of Attorney
Thomas is as follows:
The question is whether The act Of Marcel, 3,
1893, rcpeals the provisions in regard 10 the sale
OF Intoxicating liquors by hotels and duiy.incor-
poratcd clubs, contained in the act OF March 3,
1885. regarding the sale OF Intoxicating Hquots
IN the District OF Columbia II the act Of March
3. 1889. has the effect of repeating the act Of
March ,, ls's;. in regard to hotels and clubs. it
Is 10y nhpiicdtion. aud such repeals not ia
voTed by the courts. II the act OF March 3 Is'o
the only legislation on the subject then
there would he question but that its effect
would be to prohibit absolutely the sale Of intoxi-
eating liquors on Sunday, but, being in pari
niateIia with the act o March 3. ls.S. IL is 10
be read with il. and Icpcas it only so far as the
provisions OF the earlier acts in conflict
with it,
No mention of the act Of 1893 is made in the
act uf lSgp. There is therefore, no expressed in
| tcnllOn repeal alter earlier act. pyCpuI
to brewers and distillers. Again. the penalties
prescribed by the two acts entirely different.
BY the latter act only 4 tine Is imposed. whereas
the earlier act imposed both fine and imDrisgn-
ment. and. in addition. second conviction for
feits the offenders license This j. significant as
showing that the act of 1889 was not intended
TO superSede or repeal any Of the provisions of the
act of 1893.
1t is not to be supposed that in regulating the
liquor traffic in this District Congress intended by
the OF March 3, 1893, deal les, stringently
with nfractiors OF lhe provisions Of the act of
March 3, 1sri in regard TO the sale OF intoNicat-
| ing liquors than therein provided for. For these
reasons, my opinion is that Congress did not in
! tend by the act Of March - ls.c, to prevent the
| sale OF liquors ON Sunday by hotels and clubs.
After receiving the opinion OF Attorney
| Thomas the Commissioners took the fol-
lowing view of the matter in unanimous
| endorsement of the papers:
The question as to whether the law referred TO
in this shonld he enforced does not appear to
| be very definitely settled by thu Attorney opin-
| ion. inasInuc as he bases it what the intention
| OF Congress may or may not be supposed 10 be.
| II that il is rather = matter Of the inter
| probation Of the law it stands, and hinges
more on the legal point he refers 10 whether
| or NOT il refers to former laws. As there will
always be difference of opinion, probably, on
this point. our impression Is that the only way
10 settle the matter satisfactorily is 10 make a
test case