The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1907-05-24
ARE CLUBS
PROHIBITED?
Saloons on PunchboWI
and Orpheum
Saloon.

Whether the new liquor law repeal
the law of 1905, permitting social club
members for an additional tax of 5000
is the latest question taken up by tht
LIQUOR License Commission. It wa!
presented lust before adjournment o1
the board yesterday by Chairman Bal
!. lentyne in the form of the following
motion, which was carried:
"That the board request a written
opinion of the Attorney General as to
whether Act 119 of the Session Laws OF
1907 repeaIs Act 25 of the Session Laws
of 1905 relating to club licenses"
The 1907 liquor law does not express
Iy repeal the 1905 club liquor law. 1t
does repeal Act 81 of 1905. the general
liquor law of that session, excepting
as to offenses arising Hereunder and
cases of such pending at the time the
new law comes into effect. Yet the 1907
law says:
Section 2 No person shall sell, or
expose, or keep, or offer for sale any
intoxicating liquor, except as author
lied or licensed SO to do under the pro-
visions of this act.
s'But the provisions of this act shall
not apply to a duly licensed pharmacist
making sales upon prescription or order
of physician duly licensed to practise
medicine in this Territory"
Act 25 of 1905 does not speak of the
sale of liquors, it's provisions being
the following:
Section 1. Any social club, whether
incorporated or not, furnishing meals
and intoxicating liquors, Or intoxicat-
ing liquors alone, to it's members, shall
pay an annual tax to the Territory or
Hawaii in the sum of two hundred dol
lars $4,000, the said tax to be col
lected by the Treasurer of the Terri
tory or of the county N which said
club is situated.
Section 2 The payment of said tax
shall be held to entitle any genuine,
bona f1de social club, in which the
furnishing of intoxicating liquors is in
cidental to its main object and puT-
pose, and not its main object and pur-
pose. and which is not formed directly
or Indirectly for evading or defeating
the purpose of the general license laws
of the Territory, to distribute meals
and intoxicating liquors amongst its
members without the payment of any
other tax or license fee; provided, that
the payment thereof shall not be held
to exempt such club from the payment
of taxes on its property
This law talks about furnishing and |
liquors by clubs to their
not once mentioning the sale
thereof, yet it is well known to have
been intended to permit clubs to sell
liquors to their members.
The new license law says no person
eating liquor except as authorized under
it's provisions. 1t excepts pharmacists
from this prohibition but not clubs, and
under a well-known rule of construc-
ion a specific exception may exclude
al others.
Therefore the commissioners are in
law adviser.
ANOTHER DIFFICULTY.
When it came to consider reply to
he complaint of certain saloon keepers
Who find themselves outside the limits
lefned in the boards adopted policy,
mother difficulty arose which occupied
he greater portion of the two hours
nd quarter yesterdays session last
d. And then it was deferred for fur c
her consideration until the meeting at {
o'clock this afternoon. {
1t was this way. There was a dis
osition on the part of Messrs. Camp
ell, Lucas and Long to make an ex- c
option of the Orpheum saloon, on ac- t
cunt of the orderly manner in which Y
was agreed Charles Lambert kept :,
ne place, also of a certain public de-
hand for a saloon at that location. I
Mr. Campbell had the additional rea- b
IN that the renewal of the Orpheum !,
sIoon license would probably stave off
pplication for a license right around
le corner on Beretania street, which, Z
lough within the limits, would be
ore Objectionable than the Orpheum c
aloon in its present location. But Mr..
ampbeu wanted the exception of the
rpheum put on record now-not to the ! IL
ltent of assuring that place of a re- o
ewal but to that of considering Lam T
ert's application among others when .
e time came for that business. He =
fered an amendment to that effect to | r.
hat-footed reaffirmation Of the policy ii
the board in the following motion j.
? Mr.. Gilman: ),
THAT the board sees no reason for u
Continued on Page Three.)