Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1906-01-26
ANTrsALOoN LEAGUE MEETING.

htteuueu ny members from Gil eeCLl0ne oil
the county. President W. A. Maxwell pre-.
| sided. After the completion of formal bust
ness, the regularly adopted program publish.
ed in the SENTINEL last week was fully CARR.
ed out. One OF the most interesting papers
read before the meeting was that of Mr..
Frank Higgins, who is attorney and chair
man of the Law Enforcement Committee of
the League. His paper began with review
of the cases before our Court last Novem.
Der. Forty, three cases were tried, and only
nine of the criminals escaped the law, stated
Mr.. Higgins. This section of his paper
closed by complimenting States Attorney
X. B. Peter Tor his Jealous and efficient
prosecution. Other matters that he dwelt
upon are as follows:
CHEVY CHASE CASES.
Amongst the cases called for trial at the
November Term. were two against the
Chevy Chase Club, one OF which included
two Of Its servants. These indictments
were brought at the November Term 1904.
The Sheriff served process on DR.. Loring,
who was supposed to be the blouse Mana
ger Of the Club," on the 10th day OF March ,
1905.
At the March Term 1905, when the cases
were called for trial Messrs. Arthur Peter
and Edward q. Peter, attorneys, entered
appearance specially and filed plea to the
Jurisdiction of the Court to try the cases.
The plea stated that the Club was corpor-
alton organized under the laws OF the United
States for the District of Columbia, and
therefore not amenable to the criminal laws
of the State OF Maryland. To this plea q
demurrer was filed by Robert B. Peter
States Attorney, and arguments were heard
upon this demurrer, but the Court withheld
its decision until the November Term 1905,
when the Court sustained the demurrer to
the plea and ordered the cases to be tried.
Between March Term and November Term
the States Attorney had caused writ OF
distringas to be issued against the Clubs
property in order TO compel its appearance
in Court to defend the indictments, and this
writ was served by the Sheriff. At the trial
OF the case at the November Term, plea in
abatement was filed to the Sheritfs return
upon the summons made upon DIR. Loring,
and the Club produced the minutes book OF
the Board OF Governors" OF the Club TO
show that DR.. Loring had resigned on the
26th day of February, 1906, just 10 days be-
fore he was summoned by the Sheriff. The
Court sustained this plea. Then the Club
through its attorneys asked the Court TO
quash the writ of distringas on the ground
that the writ could not properly be issued
until service Of process had been properly
served upon some official OF the Club. The
Court granted the motion TO quash the writ
of distringas, add this necessitated the cases
being continued TO the next March Term OF
Court, Since the November Term, the
States Attorney has had new process issued
10 be served upon the newly elected officers,
which has been placed In the hands OF the
Sheriff, who has yet made no return TO the
Court. The States Attorney expresses a
hope TO be able TO try the cases at the March
Term 1905. Shall the Chevy Chase Club be
or not be allowed to dispense intoxicating
liquors in this county to its members and
their guestsf That's the question. There is
no dispute as TO the high personnel OF the
Club, tor We are informed by Mr.. +. Q. Hut
ton ian ex member OF the Club) that the
President OF the United States Is member,
as are also two members oil the U. 3. Su.
preme Court, many prominent ministers of
the different churches, many members oil the
Diplomatic Corps and officers OF the Army
and Navy OF the United States. Now,
don't you think such men ought to Bet rs
country folk better examplef Mr.. Hutton
also "distinctly, positively and Indignantly
denies that now, or at any time, has any
evil influence emanated from the Chevy
Chase Club" We take issue with Mr.. Hut
ton. The public or private consumption OF
Intoxicating liQuora aa beverage always
prod uces evil and that continually, and the
bad example Of violating our law with sp
parent igag9qi.y g az !aiu sTS, i9r sTl
from the Clnbg
OUR LOCAL OPTION LAW.
Local option was first obtained in this
county by u petition TO the Maryland Leg.
islnture in 1880. The law was approved
April 10, A. ID. 1880, which forbade the sale
OF Intoxicating liquors In this county, under
penalty OF from $50 TO $500 fine. at the
discretion OF the Court. This law went into
effect the first Monday in May, 1881. Of
lenders OF this law, when convicted were
usually fined the sum OF 500, never more
than 800, and in default OF paying the fine
they were committed to the county Jail. AS
there was no limit to the time OF the com.
mitment to Jail, being simply In default of
paying the fine, the parties remained there
until discharged under the insolvent laws
To remedy this defect, the Legislature 10
1894 amended the law, leaving the fine the
same as before, bat giving the Court pow er
10 send the convicted party 70 the Mary land
House OF Correction from Q TO Q months in
default OF paving the fine. From that time
TO 1904 the law was MISUNDERSTANDING this
period the Montgomery County Anti Saloon
League began It's active operations, especial.
ly the last seven or eight years. We found
the law being violated over the county, espe-
cially along the Conduit Road, and the Off
Gals OF the county rather Indifferent as TO
strict enforcement OF the law. Up To within
hha.s atniNt hAF ihaF
the maximum fine was imposed. In the
year 1902, the Montgomery County Anti
Saloon League began to take notice Of ex-
listing conditions. Ii found an open bar at
Cabin John, pool room at Sullivans on
the Conduit, and the law openly and fla
GRAVITY violated in other pSrts OF the county.
The League employed detectives and closed
up the pool room and the Cabin John Hotel
bar and stopped the open sale of intoxicants
in this county absolutely. IL was 10 this
same year IL was sought by the League TO
have the law amended by increasing the
penalties for q second ohense. The bill, for
reasons best known 10 certain member OF
the Legislature, was forcibly detained In his
desk, and the bill never saw daylight again.
II is probably better for us that the bill did
not pass for we have better law, but 1t does
not remove the moral obliquty OF the act of
In 1904 an new law was substituted for
the old one, adding an additional ofense to
that OF sale by making 1t an ofense 10 keep
intoxicating liquors on ones premises with
intent 10 sell and giving the officials the
right OF search. The present law also in
creases the penalties, making them cumula-
tive, and gives the Court discretion oil both
fine and imprisonment.
HOW TO KEEP THE LAW WE HAVE
The best way Is to strictly enforce il. IL
it is good law, and we all admit that 1t Is, if
allowed To be violated with immunity, 1t
will become dead letter. The way TO re-
peal bad laws is TO strictly enforce them,
because If pernicious a strict enforcement
will bring about their repeal. The League
will have occasionally TO remind the Off cials
OF the county there is local option law on
the Statute Books. One OF the difficulties of
keeping this law is the accessibility of Wash