Evening star., 1934-09-07
SUIT CHALLENGES
TAKOMA h. ELECTION
Injunction Against Vote Is
Asked-Hearing Set
for Monday.
fContinued From First Page.)

from 70 $50 O'CLOCK tnlS afternoon
and from to o'clock this evening
to act on challenges, the final step in
preparing the list of those eligible to
vote In the referendum.
The petition states three of the
plaintiffs, McLain, Simpson and Bal
los. are still authorized to sell 80 beer.
and that Mattingly had a 80 beer
license until August 2. All of the petit
TONERS are described as taxpayers in
the District of Columbia
The applications of the plaintiffs
for licenses under the new liquor law
were consolidated for hearing in
March and April. They tell the court
that, after objections had been filed
by those opposed to the licenses, the
Alcoholic Beverage Board laid the
matter before the Commissioners.
Commissioners Reply.
The applicants assert in their court
petition that the Commissioners sent
the following memorandum to the
Beverage Board, in reply:
Each individual case stands on its
own merits. The Commissioners do
not, as a matter of policy, believe
that any section of the District of
Columbia should be designated as a
dry area. They think that the wishes
of a majority of the citizens should
determine the action of the A. B. G.
Board in each case"
Turning to the legal arguments,
the petition questions the legality OF
allowing District officials TO serve as
an election board and as judges, be-
cause they are paid for performing
specific services, and also challenges
the use of emergency relief funds IN
taking the registration of residents.
Refers to Organic Act.
Referring to the organic act Great
Ing the commission form OF govern
ment, the petition argues:
by that act Congress declared that
the District of Columbia should be
governed by three Commissioners un-
der ample authority therein conferred,
and that the residents of the District
should have no voice in the conduct
of it's government, other than in con-
formlty to that act prescribed. No
where therein was any provision made
by Congress for the right of the resi-
dents OF the District of Columbia to
express their views in its government
by popular vote. The clear
intent OF the organic act was to vest
in the Board of Commissioners full
power and authority adequately to
govern the affairs Of the District of
Columbia and completely to abandon
the earlier form of government. where
in residents were permitted the right
to vote. Under that act the Commis-
@sioners are compelled to assume full
Responsibility for its proper gotefn
@ment and their oaths Of offce." 8
Delegation Held Banned.
Continuing their argument that the
organic act prevents the Commis-
sioners from holding referendums.
the petition adds:
They have no right under the law
or their oaths of Office to delegate the
exercise of that discretion or to per-
init its control by any person or
group of persons in the District of
EColumbia or in any section thereof.
To permit their discretion to
be controlled by the expression Of
any small group of citizens within
this small area defined is an unlaw-
sful delegation of their right to exer-
else discretion granted them under
the law and is destructive of the
form of government established by
Congress. 1t makes of the commits
sion form of government a mere
sham. 1t converts the organic act
into an instrumentality by which the
District may still be governed, not
by a Board of Commissioners, but by
popular vote
Additional Voting Feared.
The petitioners contend that If the
Takoma referendum is legal, the
Commissioners would have the same
authority to arrange for a similar
vote Throughout multitudinous small
areas defined on the same questions
propounded in that ballot" The Pc
tition adds:
IF they have the right to hold
such a series of referendums on those
questions they have on any question
relating to the government Of the
District Of Columbia which may come
before them for their decision and to
decide which Congress reposed the
duty upon and authority in them, not
the people at large.
In attacking the reasonableness of
the conditions laid down for the
referendum, the applicants argue that
the boundaries fixed for the referen-
dunn have no reasonable relation to
these particular license applicants, be-
cause some residents in the southern
portion of the area live over a mile
from the premises affected by these
applica tions."
Five Licenses Cited.
They also argue that within the
area, on the east side Of Georgia ave-
nue., from Underwood street north to
the District line, five alcoholic bev-
erage licenses have been issued that
run until next January. Another
complaint is that the length of time
for which the result of the referendum
would apply has not been specified.
The petition contends that the re-
suit OF the referendum must be con-
trolling on the discretion invested in
the Commissioners, and that, if not
the money spent in arranging for the
balloting would be wasted.
Since the suggestion of court actor
was first heard last week Corporation
Counsel E. Barrett Prettyman has ex.
pressed confidence that the Commis.
sioners had authority under the liquor
control act to order the referendum
pointing out that the liquor Law
authorizes them to ascertain the
wishes of residents and property own.
ers in a community where license.
are applied for. The corporation
counsel submitted a memorandum te
this effect TO the Commissioners be.
fore they ordered the holding of thu