Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-04-09
A KNOTTY PROBLEM
Involving Refund Of Liquor
License Fees.
THE ASSESSORS VIEWS
QUESTION ARISES FROM CON-
sTRUCTIoN OF OLD LAW.
Six Parties Claim They Enormously
Paid Excessive Amounts for
Liquor Permits in 1898.

solution knotty problem. invoiVlnS tue
! question of the refund of about $1,000 in
the aggregate to six different parties, who
severally claim that the District should re-
pay to them certain amounts alleged to
have been enormously paid for liquor
licenses during the year ending October 81,
1893. The question arises from the con-
struction placed by former board of Com
| missioners upon the liquor license laws OF
the District enacted by Congress March 3,
1895.
The question before the Commissioners IN
these applica tions is regarded as an import
ant one to the District, in view of the pos
sibility that a number of additional cases
of an exactly similar character might IN
the future be presented to the District au-
thorities and the aggregate amount OF the
refund involved might in that event ce
coEsidera BILE -. .
Honewel H. Darneille. the District asses
| sor. has made comprehehSNe iep ~ -
the cases but states that he IS not pre-
| n,red To recommend either favorable or I'M
| favorable action. He thinks the corporation I
! counsel should decide certain poia's III
The Auditors View.
Auditor John r. Garrison who has like
wise reviewed the applications, does not
think the applicants entitled to the refund
lion counsel submit an opinion in the mat
.or In wow of the circumstance it is likely
that both the corporation counsel ana tue
controller of the treasury will be fequesteo
NV the Commissioners for opinions oh 'i1e
points at issue 49,, f,nd IF
,n,ounts Maid for licenses are Philip fiem-
lock. George Delahay, William h hei s e,
&. Co, Patrick Shugrue, John Davls anu anu. ~,
c. Schaefer. as treasurer OF the NY s.st 10
| fore the District Commissioners py ht'of-
new Sidney II. Thomas. 80
In the affidayits filed with the applications
| the claimants declare that they MAR aI,i
| ia them under an act of Congress APP
proyed June =, 1892 the diHerence III
amount paid by them as license TAX lol
| the license year ending OCTOBER 81 ao'.', u.
| der an act of Congress approved March y.
| 1893 and the license tax prescribed BY acN
| of the tate legislative assembly of the DIS
| trict approved August y, ISL
Question Regarded as New.
The question presented in the applica-
| tions under consideration is regarded as
rev one in connection with the construc-
| ton placed upon the present liquor laws
enacted in 1893 by the board of Commits
| sioners serving at that time Mr.. Ihomas
| claims on behalf of his clients that they
were engaged in the liquor business IN inc
| District prior to the passage OF the act Oh
March 1893 but that they were operating
| without license having rendered to the
| District authorities the amount or the
| licenses, he says, but for some reason the
| licenses had been refused. The District
| assessor reports that there are no RECORDS
| in his office showing that the applicants
| were engaged in the liquor business with
| cut licenses prior to March }, 1893. nor Is
there any record there of a tender having
been made.
/ 1t is stated that anticipating the pas
sage of the act of March g. 1893. the board
| of Commissioners, about two months prior
| to that date, stopped the issuance OF liquor
| licenses under the old law passed by the
| legislative assembly. 1t IS stated that in
| case a tender of the lisense fee were made
and the authorities refused to issue q
| license the applicant making the tender OF
| fee could conduct his bar room without a
| license and not be amenable to the law. 1t
| is admitted that such cases probably exist
| ed under the circumstances that prevailed.
| Prescribes the Fees.
| Assessor Darneille, in his report on the
| cases at issue, calls attention to the fact
that provisions of the act of the legislative
| assembly approved August %, 1871, were
meager. There were scarcely any regula-
| tons or stipulations to be observed other
than the payment of the license fees pre-
scribed The act of Congress of March
g. 1893 however, placed all matters with
| respect to liquor licenses under the JuriS-
diction of the Commissioners, as an excise
board.
| Attention is called by the assessor to the
decision of the District Supreme Court in
the case of the District against Ignatius
| Nau which was to the effect that the act
| of the legislative assembly referred 10 was
| a revenue act; that there was no author
| ity vested in any one to decline to grant
| a LIQUOR license, and that upon tender of
the proper fee an applicant could conduct
| his liquor establishment whether or not he
was issued license. Continuing, Mr.. Oar
| nellie says:
| at appears that upon the passage Of the
act of Congress approved March 3. 1893,
the Commissioners were of the opinions that
it's provisions became immediately etec-
tive, and they thereupon required all those
persons who had applied for ard received
| licenses for the license year ending Octo-
her 81, 1893, to pay the pro rata increase In
| rate for the time intervening between the
| passage OF the act and the end of tie IL
| cense year. BY majority decision of the
Court of Appeals, rendered June 6. 1888.
in the case of Bush against the District. 1t
| was decreed that this action of the Com
| missioners was erroneous. and thereupon
the amounts paid as mentioned were re-
funded by the Commissioners.
Second Class of Applicants.
"In addition to those persons who were
required to pay the increased rate, as pre-
viously mentioned, there a second class
of applicants who had applied for licenses
for the license year ending October 81, 1898,
but whose applications had not been acted
upon at the time of the passage of the
act of March 3 1893. When these licenses
were subsequently granted the applicants
were required to pay at the new rate.
by act approved June =. 1902. Congress
directed that the Commissioners refund to
wholesale and retail liquor dealers who were
engaged in business in the District on March
3, 1893 moneys enormously collected as
license taxes for the license year ending DC
tober 81. 1893.
There is still another class of liquor
| licenses issued for the license year end
ing October 81. 1S03. continues Mr.. OAR
nellie. This class includes licenses issued
| to persons who rendered the license fee IA
| the collector of taxes before the passage
| of the act of March 3, 1893. but because
| they had not complied with the require
ments of the act of the legislative assem-
bly, approved August 23. 1871. with respect
| to the obtaining of the consent of property
| owners and residents or for other reasons
| were refused licenses, but under the de-
| cisions in the Nau case. continued in bust
ness without licenses This is the class OF
| applicants for whom Mr.. Thomas now APP
| pears.