The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-05-28

acknowledgement for plaintiff on verdict.
David BOWS against James Perrin.-Judgment for
plaintiff on verdict.
The Temperance Movement.
TO THE INHABITANTS OF THE NINTH WARD.
FELLOW CITIZENs:-The undersigned, Commits
sioners Of Excise for this ward, would respectfully
state the for the course we have pursued in
relation to licenses for the sale of intoxicating
liquors. We were elected with the express under
standing, by all parties, that we would not grant
any licenses for the sale Of such liquors. to be used
as beverage; and In refusing to grant such llcen-
ses we have only met the expectations OF the
friends as well as the opponents Of the liquor trafc
and have acted In accordance with the principles we
held before our elections.
It is conceded that spirituous liquors are some
times required for medicinal mechanical and sacra-
mental purposes; but there are so many facilities for
obtaining wine for sacramental purposes that there
can be no necessity for licensing any one in this
ward, to sell wine merely for this purpose.
We have been willing to give every facility for
obtaining this article to those who require it for
medicinal purposes; but being well convinced that
most OF those who would say that they wanted Ii
cense to sell for medicinal purposes would abuse
such license, and sell to those who would drink to
excess, and thus perpetuate all the evils Of intern
perance, we determined to confne the sale for medi
cinal purposes to reliable men, who keep other
drugs and medicines for sale, and who would give
sufficient assurance that they would sell the article
only for strictly medicinal purposes.
Very strong Inducements have been urged upon
us to license few respectable grocers to sell liquor
by retail. But the resolution passed by vote of
three to one in both Boards OF the Common Coun-
Gil, and approved by the Mayor, designed to con-
form the action of the Excise Commissioners to the
provisions of the statute, forbds the sale of liquor
to be drank in the same place where liquor is sold
/ by retail. We could not, them Tor this important
reason, license any men to retail liquor, unless we
could have satisfactory evidence that they would
entirely refrain from the sale to be used as a
beverage.
We are also in principle particularly opposed to
the sale of liquor in places where provisions are
sold. This we believe to be the origin of large
part of the worst evils of intemperance in ward
and city. Under no circumstances, in our opinion,
should intoxicating liquors be kept for sale in the
same place where groceries and family provisions
are sold.
As to licensing porter-houses and tippling-shops,
where idle and vicious men and boys are accustom-
ed to congregate, we have had no doubt respecting
our duty. We could not have the shadow OF an ex-
cuse or feel for one moment justified in authorizing
the men who keep such places to continue their dis
reputable business alike injurious to individuals and
to the whole community.
There remained but one other class Of places that
had any claim for license to sell Intoxicating drinks
that was taverns where suitable provision made
for dodgers and travellers. The laws of the State
provide that any such place may be duly licensed,
with all the rights, privileges, and responsibilities Of
house ofpublic entertainment, without the liberty
of selling intoxicating drinks. Such houses Of pub
lie entertainment we offered to license, but appli-
cant was willing to take license for tavern to
furnish rest and refreshment to weary travellers
less he could have the liberty Of supplying them
and all others with any quantity and all varieties Of
intoxicating drinks
The subscribers could see no valid reason why
Intoxicating drinks should be sold in houses public
entertainment, if that traffic is everywhere else for
hidden on account Of its inherent evil and immoral
tendencies. Nor could we see why tavern keepers
should be legally provided with the means OF max
ing strangers and travellers drunk and fitting them
to commit crimes cause disturbances. riots and taxa
tion when, both by law and by the universal senti-
ment of the people, they are positively forbidden I'M
der heavy penalties, from pursuing such course in
relation to our own citizens.
While, therefore, we have been willing to make
ample provision for the sale Of spirtuous liquors for
medical and other lawful and proper purposes, we
have been compelled to refuse all the applications
that have been made for license to sell intoxicating
drinks in this ward, from deep conviction of the
of the public welfare, and conservators Of the pub
lie peace, sOlemnly bound by our oath of Office to
protect both the public and private interests Of the
people against the cupidity and recklessness Of self
ish men, who would enrich themselves by fostering
and aggravating the depraved appetites of drunk
ards, multiplying inebriates, paupers, and criminals
from our sober and vrtuous young men, and impos
ing upon community the continuance and increase
ton, ard crime, ergendered by intemperance.
With entire confidence in the justice and expe-
diency Of the course we have adopted, we throw
ourselves npon this moral, religious, and patriotic
community, to be encouraged and. sustained in the
Efforts we shall most assuredly make to have all the
laws and ordinances promptly and energetcally en-
forced, which are designed to restrain the ravages
Of intemperance and TO suppress the illegal sale of
Intoxicating drinks.
PETER p. VooRHrs, Alderman Ninth ward.
HENRY P. SEE, Councilman, 2lst district.
CHARLES j. HOLDER, :" 22d q
c. 8. COOPER, Odd g
ALFRED BRUSH, Path %
New York, May 26th, 1854.