Buchanan County bulletin. [volume] (Independence, Iowa) 1869-1891, 1877-01-05

In the last issue of the BULLETIN ap
peared an article rejecting somewhat Sc
verely on the city Council with regard to
its action toward saloons, in that they do
not do all in their power to revoke Ii
cences, in certain contingencies, in accord
ance with resolution passed in October
last. The Councilmen. who, by the way
are pretty respectable men, clam that not
sufficient evidence has been furnished to
warrant them In exercising the provisions
of the resolution We think that the Ian
guage of the BULLETIN, al least is too bit.
ter by half 1t virtually arraigns the
members Of the Council rs Il set of cow
ards, that have laid down their arms and
surrendered to the minions of lawlessness.
The members Of the Council we believe,
aim to do right, but like other men
they are liable to err. In this case we do
not understand that they have,
The above appears in the Conservative
of this week The labored and sncaking
attempt to give our remarks, of last week,
personal and vindictivc Interpretation,
is characteristic of that paper. Our read
crs know that we did not even remotely
intimate that the members of the Council
were not respectable" neither did We
arraign them as "a set of cowards,"
though we think they were not equal to
the occasion, nor did we question their
motives. All this sort OF talk is for cf-
feet and to curry favor, which is in the
direct line Of our contemporary We are
told, above, that the Councilmen claim
that they had not sufficient evidence to
warrant them in enforcing their own reg
ulation, in the case mentioned. This is
untrue, with regard to some Of them, but
what evidence did they want. They had
the testimony of the Marshal, that the 50.
loon keeper in question, had repeatedly
sold liquor to habitual drunkards, to
drunken men, and even to men whom the
Marshal had himself forbidden him to
furnish liquor. To this was added the
testimony of the Mayor, and last, that of one
of their own number, to the effect that the
evidence before the Ceroner's jury in the
case of Tim Maher, who was frozen ia
I death while drunk the night before
Thanksgiving, disclosed the fact that
that unfortunate man drank at the bar of
the saloon in question the day of his
death, while in state of intoxicatioh.-
This was not judicial evidence to be sure,
but did it not convince the majority of
the Council that the saloon whose license
they were asked to revoke, had violated
the letter and spirit of the Oct ober rcso
lutions If 80, the only proper course to
pursue, in our opinion, was to make good
the penalty. This the Council, through
mistaken lenity, or timidity, failed to do
and here lies the point OF our criticism.
One Of the members of the Council, no,
especially prominent as n temperance man
informed us that he and two other mem
bers, would have voted for the revocation
Of tie license, had n motion been made
We have no doubt that this is true OF q
majority of the members Now does the
Conserentice or anybody else assume tina
they we're ready to do this without sufii
cient evidence?
The matter is no longer practica
question, the license of the saloon having
expired and q renewal having been refus.
ed by the Mayor. We only alludc to Il
again, and at this length, to give emplla
sis to our idea of the impolicy of the
Council passing rules and regulations tina
it is not ready and willing to enforce te
the letter. 1t would be far better not tt
enact laws, than to leave them dead let
ter, or to make lame apology for thei
non-enforcement Few of the ordinances
require direct action of the Council fo
their enforcement When such is thu
case, the dignity of the body. as well as
the example to the regular executive Off
GERS Of the city, requires that its actor
should be prompt and effectua.