St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1891-12-09
new POINTS RAISED.
They Are Directed Against
the Validity Of the Saloon
Ordinance.
Mrs. Catherine HirdIer Seeks
for Protection From a
Former Husband.
Bradish and Hunter Are
Warmed Up Over the Pump
Investigation.
SIN alley on Wastes Of Mod
ern Society--District
Court News.

New interest in the crusade against
the Sunday saloons was awakened yes
terday, and a new phase of the question
was presented before Judge Elliott in
the municipal csurt which may have
the effect of knocking out the liquor
ordinance and greatly changing the fut-
ure tactics of MessrS. Briggs and Selo-
ver Or the twenty-One SalOOnkeepers
arrested last week on complaint of
Walter S. Briggs for falling to keep
their places closed on Sunday twelve in
terpOSed demurrerS to the complaint on
the ground that it did rot state facts
Sufficient to constitute an Offense. and
the balance had their cases continued to
this afternoon. The court fixed upon
yesterday afterdOOn to hear argument
on the demurrerS, and at 2 O'Clock the
cases of w. ii. Harris and J. E. Jack
son were taken up, Odell and Nc
MahOn appearing for defendants, and
Mr.. Odell presenting the cases.
The reference in its pleadings sci forth
the following points: That the Ordi-
nances under which the complaint is
drawn is void. in that it is in conflict
with the constitution and laws of the
state.
That the complaint is void in that the
ordinance under which it is drafted and
made assumes to legiSlate and control
an act already made penal by the gen
eral statutes of the state.
That the complaint is void in that the
city council has no power and authority
to make and pass the ordinance under
which it is drawn.
That the ordinance is void in that it
provides penalty greater than is per
United DV the charter
After having thus attacked the ordi-
nance and the complaint on all sides
the defense denies the jurisdiction of
the municipal court over the defendant
because. as stated. the penalty pro-
vided in the ordinance is greater than
that of Offenses triable by justices of
the peace, and further declares that.
providing the ordinance to be good. the
complaint is not sufficient under the
same.
AT this point is incorporated an alb
stract of section 10,vOlume 2, Minnesota
laws of 1873, as amended in 1887, the
state law which covers this point. Here
1t is set forth that under this statute it
Is absolutely necessary TO prove sale and
to show that the saloon is open for bust
ness on Sunday, and decisions of the
higher courts are quoted in support of
this assertion.
The pleadlngS then go on to show that
one provision of the statutes makes the
keeping OF saloon open Oh Sunday a
crime in any part of the state. and state
that chapter is of the Laws of 1887 took
from the cities the control of the liquor
traffic and establishes a uniform rule
for all.
Great stress is laid upon the fact that
the ordinance furnishes different modes
of punishment than the statute of the
same OffenSe, and is therefore void.
Another point which is made is that
keeping open is harmless III itself, and
that there must be intent TO sell.
In conclusion the pleadingS set forth
that the place was not kept open within
the meaning of the law, and that the
complaint therefore failed to show Suf-
ficent cause of action.
Nearly the entire afternoon was de-
voted to argument of the fine legal
points of the question, Attorney Dunn
appearing for the state. and the court
finally took the case under adyiselnent
until today at a. m.