The weekly Floridian. [volume] (Tallahassee, Fla.) 1867-19??, 1880-04-13
Proceedings - sAe Caey COwmcHH-
Proposed Repeal Of the Sunday
MAww@P Law

LaQaor Law.
At called meeting Of the City Council, last
Tuesday night, after the transaction Of little
minor business the following, doubtless IN the
special interest Of individuals, was offered for
adoption, by Herman Davis:
An ordinance to amend Section Fifth Of an or
dinance passed September the 6th 1879 Said
Section Is hereby amended TO read a. follows :
SECTION l. That no person licensed as dealer
in wines, spirituoas. vlnons e. malt lIquora or
mixtures thereof IN this city, shall be allowed
to sell by the drink or glass, or permit any one
TO drink in their establishments on Sundays, any
wine, spirituous, vinous or malt liquors, or mix
lures thereof Any one violating this section
shall, upon conviction, be fined not less than five
nor more than ffeen dollars Provided, hOsc-
eoer, that not less than five dollars nor moro than
fifteen, shall be imposed upon any one violating
this ordinance on any one Sunday.
All ordinances or parts of ordinances conflict
ing with the provisions of this ordinance be and
the same are hereby repealed
After being read, and amended, by Julius Ball,
so as to read " not less than five nor more than
fifteen" as above, instead Of not more than
five as originally, it was discussed and opposed
by some and finally left over for further considera-
ton at the next meeting. The amendment to
the amendment was doubtless offered on account
81 the opposition manifested and to lend tone
of sincerity or plausbility TO the proceeding.
To us it has the ring of an offer to the city of
IS or more per Sunday for license 10 sell; and
at best, it amounts to that If there is not an
intention to violate, whence proceeds the motive
to make beforehand protection for the violator
to secure TO him, if not able to full, at least
partial immunity, mere nominal punishment
The parties Offering and advocating this amend
ment impress the public with the idea that they
are acting on the old principal of taking time
by the forelock" To make this amendment is
to, in the spirit if not in the letter repeal the
prohibitory ordinance and institute liz its stead
special license system permitting dealers to sell
on Sunday, some of whom no doubt can we'll af
ford to pay license of s. or even more for each
Sundays privilege, as this is usually their best
day Then, if indirect licensing is to be the re-
suit, why not repeal the prohibitory law at once
and issue directly and regularly special permit
to sell on Sunday? Since it is generally under
stood that this is virtually TO be the case if the
amendment is adopted why not, instead, make
it the Law .? To do so would not only save time
and the trouble of detection and conviction, but
IuSuIC W TIC city IeNcuut III WHICH OLu6IWISC
it may be defrauded
We are opposed to the amendment, as we be-
lieve a majority of good citizens are. Rather
than decreased, we prefer to see the penalty in
creased for the nfraction Of this and all like or
dinances
Where the law imposes a fine or other penalty,
it is for the purpose of preventing an offence;
and il is the purpose Of the law TO make the fine
or penalty sufficiently severe TO deter from Of
fence, and not, as in the case with the above
offered ordinance, to permit the offence commit
ted with profit to the offender, by the assessing
and payment of mere nominal fine.
And there is no necessity for change in one
direction or another, unless we can have enforce
ment. That the existing law is neither respec ted
nor enforced, is fact too well known generally
to warrant substantiaiion here.
Let US see the laws we have operating before
undertaking to make new ones.