Evening star., 1934-09-11
COURT TODEC|DE
TODAY LEGALITY
Of TAKOMA VOTE
Justice Let's Will Rule if
City Heads Can Hold
Referendum.
THREE HOURS ARGUMENT
ON INJUNCTION PLEA
License Applicants Claim Com
missioners Have No Authority
to Allow Balloting.

Justice F.. Dickinson Let's will de-
eide in District Supreme Court today
whether the Commissioners can pro-
ceed to hold the wet-dry referendum
in Takoma, D. c.. tomorrow, for
which the stage is all set.
The Judge took the question under
advisement late yesterday, after three
hours of argument on the petition of
four liquor license applicants for an
injunction to prevent the balloting.
Right to Vote Argued.
The claims Of the license appli-
cants that the Commissioners have
no authority in law to allow residents
of the District to vote or to incur the
expenses of arranging for the ref
erendum were vigorously disputed by
District officials, who laid stress on
the provisions of the liquor control
act, which requires the Commission
ers to ascertain the wishes of the
people on the granting of licenses.
Corporation Counsel E. Barrett
Prettyman and Assistant Corporation
Counsel Vernon E. West told the court
that the referendum is merely one
method being undertaken by the Com
missioners in an effort to find out
whether licenses should be granted in
Takoma, or whether that section
should be declared dry area, in &C
cordance with section z Of the liquor
control act.
District counsel emphasized that
the Alcoholic Beverage Board and the
friad Ylrh1ip haQrinpC
and the receipt of petitions from the
vets and the drys. On these petitions,
Mr.. West said, the drys had 1892
signers and the vets $40. He said the
Commissioners could have decided the
question then, but that each side de-
MED the petitions of the other repre-
sented the sentiment of Takoma, and
the Commissioners decided to allow
ali adult residents of the area to ex-
press themselves.
Commendation Sought.
For going to this extent in seeking
to learn the wishes of the community,
the Commissioners should be COM
mended, West told the court.
"It is true that there is no vote
in the District of Columbia, but that
does not mean the wishes of the peo-
pie should not be considered by
municipal officials" the assistant cor
poration counsel declared. "On the
contrary, the liquor control act specif-
ically provides that the Commissioners
are to ascertain the wishes OF resi-
dents and property owners"
Speaking for the license applicants,
who contend that the referendum con-
stitutes an unlawful delegation Of
power by the Commissioners to the
voters, Attorney William E. Leahy
based his plea for an injunction on
four grounds: /, that there is no
authority in law for the referendum,
and that it violates the act of 1878
by which Congress created the COM
mission form of government; 2, that
it discriminates against these license
applicants, by requiring them to be
governed by the sentiment of persons
living too far from the business places
OF the applicants; 3, because the rules
and conditions for the referendum are
"capricious and arbitrary" and 4, be-
cause the District has no machinery
for conducting elections and no au-
thority to impose penalties for viola
tons of the referendum rules.
Hits Election Cost.
Leahy also argued that the Commis-
sioners acted without authority in
spending public funds to defray the
expenses of the referendum.
Appearing as friend of the court,
Attorney George E. Sullivan, repre-
resenting a large group of residents of
CONTINUED on Page 2, Column -