Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-04-05
RULES AGAINST PETITIONERS
JUSTICE WRIGHT ACTS IN
LIQUOR MANDAMUS" CASES.
Chamberlain Club, the Bartenders'
Union Club and James Stevens
Lose in Court.

The Chamberlain Club. the Bartenders
Union Club and James Stevens have los,
their appeal to the courts to prevent the
closing of the clubs and the saloon OF
Mr.. Stevens under the order of the ex-
else board refusing to renew their H.
censes. The proceedings in mandamus
to compel the issuance of the licenses
We're also dismissed by Justice Wright
today.
! Appeals will be noted by the defend
ants. but the closing of their places can
not be avoided unless some arrange
ment is made with the excise board to
allow certain time in which to dispose
of the stock of liquors on hand.
Justice Wright held that a distinction
had to be drawn between a grant of a
franchise and grant of license.
One is property and the other is not
Confessedly the business of trafficking In
liquors is within the police power of the
sovereign to regulate even to the point
of absolute prohibition, and a license to
engage in it is mere privilege which ex-
pires with the expiration CT the license.
The provision of the statute. the court
said. to the effect that a license granted
shall not be revoked or taken away ex-
cept after a judicial conviction, applies
only to the revocation or taking away OF
a license during the year for which II
has been issued and has no application to
pires.
Therefore, there is nothing in the grant
of the original license which confers upon
the lcensee any right to it's renewal and
of any of the powers which it possessed
at the time the original license was
granted.
Power of Excise Board.
But in determining whether a renewal
,3rl,x
power of the excise board is as broad as
it was at the time of the original appli-
cation-that is, the question of renewal is
in the discretion of the board.
Whether this is an arbitrary or a
judicial discretion Is immaterial in the
case before the bar, for even If it be con-
coded that the discretion is a judicial one
that does not mean that the investiga-
tons of the board must be conducted ac-
ceedingS, does not mean that the board
can act only after formal notice of a
hearing, and then only upon the sworn
testimony Of witnesses.
1t means no more than that the board
shall act with reference to the merits
of each case after such an investigation
as satisfies the Judgment of the board
and it's members as to the merits of each
case, independent of how the investiga-
ton is carried on.
lie TetuIHS SIoW that the DOdTu ifVeS-
tigated each case. and in the Stevens
case has concluded that to license tie
business which he operates would be to
license business which violates the
spirit of the liquor law from it's begin
ming to it's end.
With respect to the cases of the so
called clubs. the board. after such inves-
tigation as satisfied it. has reached the
conclusion that there is no bona-fde club
at either place, and that the use of the
term club is a mere cover for bust
ness carried on by and for the benefit OF
an individual. Whether the finding IN
this respect is right or wrong cannot be
inquired into by the court, for the statute
has made the board the authority to de-
eide this question.