Evening journal., 1909-02-11
FIRST VETO BY
The GOVERNOR
DiSaDprOVeS Bill Refunding
Excess of Liquor License
Fees Paid

Special TO THE EVENING JOURNAL
DOVER, Del, Feb 11-Governor
Pennewill's first vote Of a bill was
transmitted to the Legislature yester-
day afternoon, when he sent by Score
tary Of state Hastings TO the House
a message announcing that the Gov
ernor withheld his approval from the
House bill that had passed both
branches providing for a return to
certain liquor dealers of New Castle
county of the excess license fees they
paid when the terms Of court were
changed. Altogether about $4,000 was
paid In excess license fees by the
dealers. Representative Welch gave
notice that he would introduce a bill
drawn to meet the objections of the
Governor, which were set forth in his
message of veto as follows.
First, In the fifth paragraph Of the
preamble it is set forth that the
licenses granted June II. A. d. 1907. had
two months and eighteen days to run
at the time the licenses were granted
on March %, A. d. 1908. by means
whereof the said change of said court,
the holders of said licenses
granted June r. A. d. 1907. have paid
10 the state of Delaware double license
fees for the months and eighteen
days In the first section Of the bill
the State treasurer is authorized and
directed to refund and pay to all per-
sons who applied for and were granted
at the March term Of the said court,
A. d. 1908, licenses for the sale of
intoxicating liquors, seventeen nine
tieths Of the amount of money paid by
each of said applicants for the license
so granted and received as aforesaid,
in the year A. d. 19Os.i
There is manifestly an error in the
calculations Of the number of days the
licenses granted June y, A. D. 1907. had
TO run when the licenses dated March
%. A. D. $685. were granted. the actual
number of days being eighty instead
of two months and eighteen days as
the bill recites; but a more serious
error is found in the first section OF
the bill which directs the State treas
urer to refund seventeen ninetieths of
the amount of money paid instead of
sixteen seventy-thirds. The fact that
this error is in favor of the State
makes the bill none the less objec-
tionable.
Second: A careful investigation
shows that the change in the terms OF
Court of New Castle County is not
wholly responsible for the irregularity
in the dates Of the approval Of licenses
TO sell intoxicating liquors. According
TO the records in the office of the clerk
of the peace in New Castle county
there has not been year during the
2ast ten years when applicants for
liquor license did not run over a few
DAYS without a license, or did not pay
n few days ahead. and in that way
pay a double license; and the number
Of days varies from two to seventeen
on December 18th, A. d. 1907. licenses
to sell Intoxicating liquors were grant
ed. and it appears that licenses TO the
same persons were granted November
q, A. d. 1908, thus making a period
of fifteen days when such persons PAID
q double license. 1t would seem that
persons taking out such licenses or
November %. A. ID. 1908, would have
equal claim with those taking out
license January 31st, A. d. 1908, 'anC
which are Included in this bill. Indeed
in order to determine exactly the
amount that should be returned, i
would be necessary to go back TO tbs
date of the original license OF every
place and every license.
"Third: The June term Of court
A. d. 1908, in New Castle county be
gan on June LIST, and these licenses die
not expire until June 18th. Their
seems to have been ten full days il
which to have had these licenses ap
proved, and the fling Of the applica
tons to the March term seems to havl
been an unnecessary precaution."