The Washington times., 1901-07-28
mined. and very properly determined

mined. and very properly determined,
upon the showing made, that it was not
such a place should receive the bar
room license that was requested. In view
of the provisions of the second section of
the same act of March 5, 1893, which en-
acted that it shall be the duty of the Ex-
else Board to take up and consider all
applications for license to sell intoxicating
liquors and to take action on such appli-
cations, and that the action of said board
shall be final and conclusive" We do not
see how the courts can review their de-
cision by means of the writ of mandamuS.
For that is what is virtually sought in
this case. The board had discretion to
exercise, and it has exercised 1t. There is
no complaint that it has exceeded or
abused its jurisdiction. or that 1t has in
any manner acted harshly, unfairly. or
Illegally. And unless its duty In the
premises is purely ministerial duty no
ground whatever is shown for the use of
the writ of mandamus.
- The claim OF the appellants is that
the duty of the board is a purely minis
terial duty, and that. under the law they
tthe appeilants) have an absolute right
TO the license which they seek, they hav-
ing in other respects complied with the
plainly an error To call a place a hotel
does not constitute 1t such. The
duty of the Excise Board under the act is
discretionary and quasi-tudicial. The act
imposes upon the board the duty of in
vestigating; and its performance of
that duty is not subject to review or
or excess or for mistake of the law,
which nowhere appear in the present in
stance
II consider that the answer to the ques-
tions of the Excise Board is practically
given by the court in this opinion.
Il take it to be the duty of the Excise
Board to investigate and determine
whether the alleged hotel or tavern is
such bona fide. having the requisite num-
ber of chambers for lodging guests; and
in my opinion the conclusion reached by
the board is final and conclusive. except
in case where it has plainly abused or
exceeded its Jurisdiction in the premises
or has made some clear mistake of the
law.
ITO illustrate: 1 do not believe its ac-
ton would be conclusive If it determined
that hotel having thirty-five rooms had
hut twenty rooms. and on this ground
should refuse to issue the license. On the
other hand, if the board should issue the
license to hotel not having twenty-five
lodging rooms. but in point of fact having
ten only. such a finding would not sustain
the grant of a license in the courts.
The duty in each case is to fairly de-
termine, upon proper investigation,
whether the hotel or tavern is bona fide
Quoted as a place for the accommodation
of guests within the ordinary accepta-
tion of the term hotel or tavern
THAT such hotel or tavern has a bad
reputation, is the resort of disreputable
characters and that it is charged against
it that unmarried couples register as man
and wife, and with the knowledge of the
proprietor occupy the same room and
bcd'-even admitting such charges to be
true / do not consider would authorize
the Excise Board to decline to grant n
renewal of the license. so long as there
is, and has been, no actual violation of
the. excise law.
These Objectionable suggestions are !
matters for police cognizance, and the
board. in my judgment. would not be jus
titled in refusing a renewal of the license
therefor
Section s of the act of Congress ap-
proved March g. 1898. concludes as fol-
lows:
That upon conviction of such Ii
censee of keeping a disorderly or disrep-
utable place it shall be the duty of said
Excise Board to revoke such licensees
license, but until such conviction such
licensees license shall not be revoked or
taken away from him.
While this provision apparently re-
lates to ordinary barroom licenses, It's
spirit and intent must be regarded so far
as the license for established hotels Is
concerned.
The communication of the Excise
Board is herewith returned