The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-03-10
LIQUOR LICENSE REBATE
Claims Advanced by an Attorney
Under the Law of 1898.
Wholesale and Retail
Dealers Ask the District Commits
on Their Applications Seven Years
Ago - The Facts in the Case.

The District Commissioners are in re-
| ceipt OF a communication from Sidney T.
Thomas, representing twenty-eight whole
sale and retail liquor dealers, who were
engaged in business in the District Of Co
lumbia in 1898, and who now claim re-
fund Of 30 per cent and 70 per cent OF the
license taxes they were respectively re-
quired to pay during the license year end
ed November /, 1898.
These dealers. it appears, filed their ap-
plicatIons for the renewal Of their licenses
in the fall Of 1892. accompanied in the case
Of retail dealers with deposit Of S25 each,
and in the case OF wholesale dealers with
a deposit Of 800 each These amounts
we're the license tax On retail and whole
sale dealers respectively, under the old law,
but for some reason. states Mr.. Thomas.
possibly in view OF pending legislation in
Congress on the subject OF the liquor traf-
fc, the applications were not acted uIon
until after March 3, 1898, the date Of the
approval Of the act of Congress regulating
the sale OF liquor in the District.
On May 3. 1893, the communication goes
on TO saw. in accordance with the judgment
effect that the act Of 1898 was TO revoke
liuuor licenses granted under the old law,
the Board Of Commissioners then IN exist
ence. acting as the Excise Board, notified
all dealers who desired 10 continue bust
ness to file their applications for license
under the new law by May %. 1898. or they
would be prosecuted for selling liquor with
out license. ThereupCn these dealers hlel
their applications under the new law &C
4
each. the amounts Of the license tax re-
spectiyely imposed by the new law on re-
tail and wholesale dealers
On June 6. 1898. the statement continues
! the Court Of Appeals reversed the judg-
ment Of the Police Court in the Bush case,
! holding that the act Of March 3, 1898, did
not affect licenses or privileges then exist
| ing. The result Of the order Of the Com
( missicners Of May .. 1893, was that dealers
1 who were fortunate enough TO nave Jhelf
/ licenses granted before March 9, 1888, On
payment Of a tax OF SO each in case OF a
/ retail dealer ana Of 500 each in case OF a
! wholesale dealer went on with their bust
! ness 10 the end Of the license year. Those
! who were not so fortunate. however, paid
/ taxes at the rate of $3.50 and $500 per an
| nun for the unexpired portion Of the
/ license year. This. Il is submitted was an
unjust and unfair discrimination, and
/ clearly in violation of the constitutional
provision that taxation shall be equal and
/ uniform.
! With this statement OF the facts in the
! case Attorney Thomas cites a law approved
| January -, 1872, which authorizes the re-
| funding OF moneys enormously paid for
! taxes, licenses, etc, and the communica-
| ton ends with a request Of the Commits
/ sioners that the money in question be re-
! funded.
The Commissioners have taken the mat
! ter under Amusement, and will, it is under
/ stood. submit the request to the Attorney
| for the District for an opinion on which 10
I base their action.