The Emporia weekly news. [volume] (Emporia, Kan.) 1881-1889, 1888-11-22
LANGflLIER OBJECTS.

Druggists Ask for Permits to Sell Liquor-Their
Cases Under Amusement.
If there was law regulating the stan
dard of cranks as there is of coins,
weights and measurers, the gentleman
whose name stands at the head of this
article would never be condemned as
counterfeit. This rather plain and
even brusque remark is not made often
sively, for we believe that he, like
Abram Hewitt, is proud of being
considered crank. He publishes
himself fanatic which is only one
of the many forms of crank. On the
hypothesis that cranks are useful in
this world, we see no good reason
to wake war on Mr.. Langalier whose
name indicates French extraction what
ever his origin or antecedents may
have been.
He is, we think, a job printer, or
job lot of some sort who loves to pose as
reformer. With him the world is all
wrong. Evil abounds and dishonesty
stalks markedly abroad. He has lost all
faith in druggists. They are especial
" wicked, Satan's own. And what is
funny about it is that these knavish
fellows are to be found only in Kansas,
glorious Kansas, with its republican
majority of 81, 900.
Well, his mission on earth is to keep
an eye on these fellows, hold them to
the law in selling liquor. or what is
better, prevent them altogether from
| e. do xxy;kI,
To that end he was promptly on
hand at the court house Saturday
to object to the courts renewing per-
mits to those whose permits for the
past year are about to expire.
| AS is we'll known each application
for permit must be signed by twenty
five householders and twenty-five wom-
en- twenty-one years old and OF good
character living in the ward in which
the druggist does business. The drug
gist had their applications all properly
signed to-day before Judge harrington.
Mr.. Langellier objected to the courts
granting permits.
First-because the women whe
signed the applications were not pres.
emit to establish the fact that they were
reputable as the law requires. The
court promptly over.ruled the demurr
er SO fiippantly offered, and held thai
the law presumed the good characte
of the signeTs until it wa
proven otherwise. Langellier wa
asked if he knew that any of them
was not reputable, and answered no
That disposed of the first objection.
Next he objected because THEREFOR
: ted purchases of liquors as evidences
by the monthly afidavits of the dru
store men and their reported sale
! showed u discrepancy in each case o
: several gallons. This to Mr.. L.
: was primafacie evidence of fraud
: The druggists accounted for the az
parent discrepancy by saying that
considerable quantity of alcohol wa
used in compromising tinetures, essen
ees, fluid extracts, recipes, dissolVini
shellac for paints and q variet
of other purposes common t
5 the drug business. In all G
: which cases no accout is kept of tn
: amount SO used.
g The court took the cases under ad
? visement and will dispose of theI
d Monday.
}. With the exception Of Mr.. LangeIl
d er and the druggists no one else took
. particle OF interest in the matter {
5 the permits. Why he should troubl
himself so greatly to embarrass theI
in complying with q law made express
Iy for their benefit Is like Gods mercy
past finding out.