Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-08-21

of it years after the hotel had been
built. The question was litigatai as to
| the wording and intent of the statute
all the way to the Court of Appeals. In
| its decision, that court said
| That the operation of the statute in
cases like the one now before lis is
manifestly harsh and would doubtless
be a Cogent argument to support the
/ proposition that the Legislature could
not have intended such effect. and
might be conclusive were the language
of the statute at all ambiguous but in
view Of the clear phrascology of the law.
| the convention is inadmiSsible and the
courts must remit those aggrieved Their
by to relief by legislative action"
That relief suggested by our highest
court I voted to give The Bills were
opposed by only a handful of assem-
blymen. On the 1908 measure. only 81
men out of the $50 voted In the mega
tive.
Another group of bills related to the
| subject Of LIQUOR tax certificates. Bill
| Introductory No 1918 Of 1910 sought
/ to give to the holder Of liquor tax
certificate the same benefit that the
Court of Appeals gave to violators Of
| other laws when that court in an opin-
| ion said that suspension of sentence
! suspended all operation of the law
| against the convicted person. / voted
! against this bin because l thought 1t
was harsh. unjust and unreasonable.
"A Voted Against II.
Bill 1862 of 1911 was an unimportant
one reducing the time from two years
to one year when an application to
renew a certificate might be made by
one who had been previously deprived
| Of it through the misconduct Of Serv-
ant or agent and not of the owner him
self The fairness Of this bill Is best
attested by the fact that only "a men
out of $50 In the Assembly voted
against it.
Bill l247 of 1911 was designed to cure
defect in the law with respect to the
transfer Of certificates. It was sup
ported by the Republican leader of the
| Assembly and only ii men out Of $50
voted against 1t.
Even more striking is the criticism
of me for voting for Assembly bill l119
of 1911, which was a technical amend
ment to the excise law with relation To
the surrender and cancellation of the
tax certificates. 1t was a departmental
measure requested by the commissioner
of excise. Not single member of the
Assembly voted against 1t.
l am criticized for voting against a
large number of local option bills:
Introductory No. 625 Of 1904.
Introductory No. TAI of 1905.
Introductory No. 466 of 1906 in two
different forms.
Introductory No. 1874 of 1910.
Introductory No. 1929 of 1911.
Introductory No 347 of 1911.
Introductory No GIT OF 1911.
In the same class are bills Nos. ll2a
of 1911. 100 of 1907 and IS of 1906.
Viewed as Duplicates.
Most OF these bills are duplicates o.
one another. The popular opinion o.
| this State at that time on the subject
can best be seen by looking at the vote
on DILL number 1874 of 1910. In thai
year the Assembly was strongly Repub
| lican and yet only SO men out of l5t
voted for this bill. 81 men. Democrat;
| and Republicans alike. voted against it
There was a strong sentiment at thai
| time against the extension of local pro-
| hihition by the local option method be-
cause Of the inability Of officials to en-
| force the law In the dry sections. the
| substitution of so-called clubs for places
| licensed by the State. and the loss by thu
| State of the license fees and tax which
| came TO 1t where sale was made in the
normal legal way. Practically every AS
| semblyman from the cities voted as
did on these measures. and in thu:
| casting their votes they were undoubt
eddy representing the will Of their con-
| stituentS.
Assembly bill, Introductory number
| GIG Of 1918, permitted a private school,
not a public school, to consent that q
liquor tax certificate might issue for
| premises within 200 feet Of It, l wa:
speaker Of the Assembly that year anc
did not vote one way or the other or
that bill.
Voted for Bill.
Assembly BILL Introductory number
436 of 1915. sought to prohibit the sale
of liquor in city adjacent to a college
or university supported wholly on partly
| by the State. There were grave consti.
tutional objections raised to the bill ant
drastic criticisms Of the technical fea'
lures OF its provisions, In an over
whelmingly Republican Assembly, only
AZ out of $50 members voted for IT..
Similarly, Assembly bill, Introductory
| number 81 OF 1915, was attacked or
constitutional grounds. The speaker O
| the Assembly that year was a well
| known prohibitionist, Even he opposed
the bill In voting against the bill,
was In the company OF the Republican
| speaker. the Republican chairman O
the committee on rules and the Repuhli
can floor leader.
Assembly bill. Introductory numbel