The Washington times., 1915-02-26

Smith and Mr.. Bride that the board
acted within it's power In regard W
the Mergner saloon in East Capitol
Seventh street northwest where
fences and flower gardens were said
by the committee to have been con-
structed to evade the law.
Given Much Attention.
| The construction OF the board Of
the law affecting saloons within 400
feet Of houses of worship was given
much attention. Commissioner Baker
holding that the board did not look
upon the Salvation Army and the
Gospel and Union Missions as houses
Of worship" within the meaning Of
the law.
When he said these institutions
were NOT devoted exclusively to church
purposes, Senator Thompson asked
the witness what ahout catholic
fairs held In churches" MI. Baker
replied that the Catholic churches
were dedicated houses Of worship.
In referring to the cases where 1t
was shown licenses had been granted
within 400 feet of these places Of
worship. Senator Thompson asked u
was the purpose of the law to permit
schools, colleges, and churches to
run free of any nuisances. Mr.. Baker
assented. but did not admit that the
board had failed to carry out that
provision.
Senator Jones and the witness then
engaged in q lengthy controversy over
that part Of the law which provides
that barroom license shall not he
granted to q hotel having less than nifty
"Why did the board add the lords.
as such after the word hotel in that
section Of the law" Senator Jones
The witness replied that he didn't re-
member why It had been inserted but
denied II had been inserted to evade the
law In regard to granting licenses In
hotels.
Senator Sheppard asked the witness II
he remembered the evidence that had
been produced against the fremont Ho-
Eyes. / recall that" replied the wit
the liquor law"
Senator Jones sought to ascertain why
the board had excepted hotels and clubs
from. that part Of the law which re-
in q residential neighborhood.
The board believed 1t had been made
clear by Congress that It was their In
tsntion sI .,,,, to exclude hotels and clubs"
why has the board not carried out
this law the way It was writtcn?" Sen
ator Jones pressed.
Thought We Had"
II thought we had" the witpess re-
piled.
Haven't you granted licenses in
blocks where there is less than 30 per
cent business?' the Senator asked.
No" came the brief reply, and then
he added. except in hotels and clubs"
Senator Jones asked Mr.. Baker why
Charles Hurdle. 3cs Pennsylvania ave-
nue. northwest. was refused license
and the Philadelphia House. directly
opposite. was granted a permit The
commissioner said he did not recall the
circumstances. Senator Jones thereupon
put into the record a letter from Mrs
Charles Hurdle, in which she stated that
no protests had been lodged against her
husbands place. which. she said. had
been operated lawfully for twenty years.
q letter from Fl. r. LaPorte. Of Balti-
more. who criticised the Marks Hotel.
The letter detailed a visit of LaPortc
to the hotel to collect a bill. He said
near his table were seated two women
smoking cigars and telling filthy
stories. LaPorte wrote that when he
ased for his check he was assaulted.
Thomas Rupert. 1875 Hamline street
northeast. who formerly conducted a
saloon at 14k B street southeast. accused
the board Of using airline" measure
ments and refusing him license. Thad
B. sareeant. a realty operator. ex-
planned that his conversation to Andrew
Wilson. president Of the Anti-Saloon
League. was misunderstood. and that he
did not infer that the Excise Board
had to be bought" John NJ Trant
and William r. Burdine. former saloon
men. testified that they paid attorneys
$25 for appearing for them. and the Rev.
Arthur Randall. q coiored minister, said
the board overruled his objection to a
saloon in his neighborhood.