New Britain herald. [microfilm reel] (New Britain, Conn.) 1890-1976, 1928-08-21
Smith, Replying to Editor White,
Spikes Charges He Aided Crime

has been listed separately without
allowance for the duplication of d
large number OF bills dealing with
the same subject matter in accord
ance with the known legis-
lative practice. In this way a DELHI
crate attempt is being made to
show that my votes dealt with far
greater number of so-called liquor
bills than in fact they did.
For convenience, l have divided
the bills under discussion into
groups. Reference is made to a
great many bills designed to change
the law with respect to the estah-
llshment OF premises licensed to sell
liquor within 200 feet OF church
or school. To the casual reader, it
would appear that this was a con-
certed and long drawn out effort to
break down this salutary provision
of our Excise Law. The fact Is that
all of these bills We're designed to
accomplish lust Two purposes. The
first was to permit the Hotel Goth
NA't \
to secure liquor license; the sec
ond. a legislative enactment recon-
mended by the Court Of Appeals to
stralghten out an apparent mistake
IN the language of the Excise Law.
AS an example of the unfarness
of Mr., Whites attack, he stated
that | voted to allow saloons within
eco feet of a church or school any
place on Manhattan Island south
OF 59th street. One of the bills
mentioned was SO drawn. but if Mir.
White was disposed to he fair to
me. he would read the bill in its
entirety and find that by it's word
ing, It applied only to the Hotel
Gotham. This hotel was within 200
feet of church. Acting under a de-
clsion Of the courts, the hotel served
liquor to its guests by the device of
renting a house outside of the 200
foot limit having a hotel employee
purchase the liquor in this house
and then carry it through he
streets for service to the guests in
Tie lOlel l1Sel1.
Fair minded men were confronted
with a decision as between a license
for the sale within the premises of
the hotel and the spectacle of bell
boys walking through the street
with cocktail shakers and win.
baskets in their hands. l chose to
end the hypocrisy of such a. pro-
cedure. and in view of the high
character of the hotel, l was en-
tlrely satisfied that if liquor was to
be consumed within the hotel it
might just as we'll be sold in it.
The Gotham Hotel bills received
the support of the leading members
of the Assembly by both political
parties from the cities. and one of
them was passed by a Republican
Legislature.
Even more strikinglv unfair is
the comment on Bill Number SIT Of
1911. which is the other bill in this
group. The language of the law
which existed before this time made
it impossible for a hotel to renew
lts liquor Incense II a SCnoOl or
church came within 200 feet of it
years after the hotel had been built.
The question was litigated as to the
wording and intent of the statute
all the way to the Court of Appeals.
In the decision that court said:
That the operation of the statute
In cases like the one now before US
is manifestly harsh and would
doubtless be cogent argument to
support the proposition that the
Legislature could not have intended
such effect, ana might be conclusive
We're the language of the statute at
all ambiguous; but in view of the
clear phraseology of the law the
contention is lnadmissible and he
courts must remit those aggrieved
thereby to relief by legislative ac-
ton"
That relief, suggested by our
highest court, I voted to give The
bills were opposed by only a hand
full of assemblymen, On the 1908
measure only 3 men out of $50
voted in the negative.