Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-08-21
MUST GO TO CONGRESS.


/ fon-Rebate.
| A legal opinion was yesterday submitted to
the Commissioners by Mr.. A. B. Duvall,
| attorney for the Distaict, on the applica-
| ton Of S. T. Thomas, attorney for certain
wholesale and retail kquor dealers. for a
| rebate of 90 per cent respectively OF the
license tax paid by them for the year end
| Ing November 1.81S93. The conclusion
reached by Mr.. Duya3i Is that Congress
alone can grant the raiief asked for.
| A review of the grounds for the claim
show that In the fall iof 1892 these dealers
| filed application Cor renewal of their Ii
censes. the retaus dealers depositing the
sum of SO and the wholesale dealers de-
posting 500, these samounts being, re-
spectively, the license tax under the then
existing law. Their applications. however.
| were held up and not acted upon until
after March 3, 1888, when Congress pass
| ed the present law regulating the liquor
| traffic in the District of Columbia.
The question at once arose whether said
| act of Congress operated to revoke the Ii
quor license heretofore granted.
The Commissioners (the then excise
board) notified all dealers who desired to
| continue business to file their applications
| for license under the new law by May %,
| 1888 otherwise they would be prosecuted
| for selling liquor without license; there
upon these dealers fled applications under
the new law, accompanied with deposits
| at the rate of $3.50 and $500. the amount OF
| the annual license tax imposed by said
act of Congress on wholesale and retail
dealers, respectively.
This requirement Of the Commissioners
was based upon the judgment OF the 70
| lice Court rendered May 3, 1893, In Bush s
case.
! On June 6, 1893, this judgment of the
| Police Court was reversed by the Court
| of Appeals Il App. d. c., -, the latter
court holding that the act OF Congress
approved March 3, 1893, did not aHect
| licenses or privileges then existing.
The resulting situation was, applicants
| who had paid $50 and 800, respectively,
| under the then existing law, and to whom
licenses had been granted prior to March
3, 1888, continued business without pay
| ment Of further tax for the license year,
| while the deposits Of $3.50 and $4oo MADE
tanned
The manifest effect of all this was a
discrimination between these dealers, one
| set of whom paid license tax of $2o ana
| at the rate Of $3.50 and $500, respectively
| for the same license year: the claim is
| now made for the refund to the latter or
| 80 per cent and IS per cent, respectively,
| of these license taxes.
This is not a new claim, for it has al
ready been the subject Of opinion by the
| then attorney for the District; and WHILE
| for the reasons assigned In his said opin-
ion and because of the statute of limita-
lions, it Is very doubtful whether the
claim could be established at law, never
theless, Mr.. Duvall is of the opinion that
| the Of these claimants presents
| strong, equitable considerations.
II do not consider, however,, says MI
| Duvall. 'as suggested in the communica-
| ton, that these license taxes could be re-
| funded by the Commissioners under the
act of the late legislative assembly OF
| the District, approved January 10, 1872
| authorizing the refunding of moneys er-
roneously paid for taxes; / do not believe
refundment in this class of cases Is with
| in the terms of said act.