The Washington times., 1901-07-28
MUST GRANT THE LICENSE
An Important Decision Regarding
the Excise Boards Powers.
If No Actual Violation of the ReguIa-
tions Has Occurred, Questionable
Reputation of u Resort Cannot BE
Regarded as Bar to Renewal.

The right of the Excise Board to decline
to issue liquor license to a resort said
to be disreputable has been denied in an
opinion rendered by A. B. Duvall, Attor-
ney for the District. and forwarded to the
District Commissioners yesterday.
Such cases." the Attorney says. ARE
matters for police cognizance. and the
board, in my judgment. would not be
justified in refusing a renewal Of the Ii
cense therefor"
In the opinion of the Attorney the Ex-
else Board is not authorized to pass upon
the question whether or not a resort
was frequented by disreputable people.
The only question to be considered by the
Excise Board is whether an actual viola
ton of the excise law has been commit
ted.
The opinion follows:
Il have duly considered the communi-
cation of the Excise Board, which. at its
request, you referred to me for opinion
upon the following questions:
whether the Excise Board has discre-
tionary power to decline to renew a liquor
license In the case of an established hotel
where the Police Department has reported
no violation of the excise laws during the
past year. but where it is charged against
lDt DOlei tndl II Is TeSOrt Oh ulSTep-
utable people, that unmarried couples
register as man and wife and occupy the
same room and bed, with the knowledge
OF the proprietor, that is to say, whether
an established hotel has a legal right to
the renewal of its liquor license, after
compliance with the excise laws. notwith-
standing its bad reputation as the resort
of disreputabie characters, so long as
there is no actual violation of the excise
law; and If the board has such power,
may 1t use discretionary judgment as
to what constitutes an established hotel
and. if so. what are the legal require
ments to establish the fact to the satis-
faction of the board.
Section 5 of the act of Congress ap-
proved March 8, 1893. regulating the sale
of intoxicating liquors In the District of
Columbia as amended May IL, 1884, pro-
vides: That any established hotel or tav-
ern having twenty-five chambers for lodg-
ing guests shall always have the right to
obtain for itself license for bar-room
on complying with the provisions of this
act. and the petition in such case must
be made by the owner or lessee of such
hotel or tavern.
''',onstruing this provision our Court of
Appeals in United States ex rel Wash
ington VS.. j. ii. Johnson ct al, the EX-
else Board az App. D., c.. 545). being an
application for rnandamus for bar-room
license at the Douglass HOTEL said:
Whether the proviso above cited is
to be construed with special reference to
the context of the section in which 1t is
found, and is to be regarded merely as
exempting hotels from the requirements
to procure the consent of adjacent prop
erty owners and residents, as would seem
TO be the most natural construction, or
whether it Is to be regarded as distinct
and independent legislation comforting a
special right upon established hotels, it
Is quite apparent that, under the law
il remains the duty of the Excise Board,
in the proper exercise of their powers, to
determine, at least prima facie, whether
the applicant for a license is. in fact and
good faith the owner or lessee of a hotel
and whether the house is. in the sense of
the law, an established hotel. This duty
they have performed i'm this case, and
they appear to have performed IL honest
ly and fairly; and the result of their in
vestigation was that the house claimed
to be kept by the REALTORS was not an es-
tablished hotel in any proper sense of the
term but place apparently used for i'm
moral purposes; wherefore they deter