The Washington times., 1912-05-09
WHY THE PRESENT
LIQUOR Law FAILS
IN CASE OF HOTELS
Excise Board Must Grant
License No Matter If Place
Is Disreputable.
Continued from First Page.)

keeping a disorderly or disrerutable
place it shall be the duty of said Excise
Board to revoke such licensees license"
does not vest the Excise Board with
the power to determine an applicants g
innocence or guilt of such charge. 1t
was held that term conviction" used
in this connection means a conviction
before some judicial tribunal having
jurisdiction, and not conviction, before
the Excise Board or according to its be-
lief in the matter.
IN other words: THE EXCISE BOARD
HAS NO RIGHT TO REFUSE BAR
ROOM LICENSE TO ANY HOTEL
ghieh Us Is h9tel Within tn the uqs meaning d Of
REPUTATION OR CHARACTER. no
matter what the reputation or Charac-
ter Of the applicant 4 that reputation
Investigation of the board or any evil
dence placed before It.
, Moreover, while the court Said CON
'riction'' of running a disorderly or dis
reputable place means conviction by a
judicial tribunal and not by the Excise
Board, and that the Excise Board can
not reject a hotel barroom license until
such a judicial conviction has been Sc
cured, the court did not speculate upon
whether the Excise Board has the right
to refuse a license after such con-
viction.
That contingency has yet to be set
! be to prosecute some hotel under the
code for running a disreputable place
and then be taken upon the same ground
that LeCuyer took his appeal, and 1t
wtetfkpS ~ Judicial conviction of In
fraction OF the laws invalidated the
rights of the licensee.
Another "Hotep Case.
Not content with this one defeat the
excise board made another stand. A
hotel in Georgetown was known to be
a disreputable place. 1t was even made
the object of a police raid. When the
owner applied for a renewal of his
license 1t was refused. He appealed
The board entered two defenses; one,
similar to that made in the LIE Cuyer
case, the other to the effect that the
hotel did not have the legal number Of
rooms. The court refused to take cog
nzance of the first defense-na mely,
that it was a disreputable plaCe-but 1:
did take CognizanCe of the second de-
fense and sustained the board In re-
fusing the license. The proprietor i'm
mediately added more rooms in order
to comply with the law, and secured a
license.
While the courts have refused to
recognize the action of the excise board
as being final and conclusive when
dealing with hotel barroom licenses it
has sustained the board in its arbitrary
action when dealing With a saloon. In
1903 the board refused to renew the
license of one James Stevens, a saloon
KEEPER upon the ground that he was
running a dsorderly and disreputable
place. Stevens appealed from the de-
cision of the board insttuting a suit
IN equity and petitionIng for writ of
mandamus. The board in its defense
set up the same pleadings that it had
in the hotel cases; claiming the saloon
was disreputable and disorderly, and
therefore the board had the right to
refuse the renewal of the license.
The court sustained the board in its
contention. 1t would therefore. appear,
' in practice, that the decis on of the
board is final and conclusive when deal
ing with saloons operated independently
of a hotel, but that it has no option
when the application is for a hotel
barroom license.
In view of this the Excise Board has
asked that 1t be given more power to
regulate hotels and hotel barrooms. but
its petitions have been pigeon-holed.
What New Law Provides.
1t is claimed that this distinction be-
tween a hotel barroom and the saloon
has embarrassed the Excise Board in its
efforts to clean up the liquor traffic.