The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1891-04-09

that he was Then the officer said he
wanted to go in. and Mcbride told him that
he would hurt him if be attempted it.
Taylor said Neidlinger replied: well, l
am obeying McDonough's orders"
who do you mean," asked Mcbride;
"Mayor McDonough 2"
''Im obeying McDonough's orders,n re-
iterated Neidinger.
THE ARREST OF M'BRIDE.
About that time a man came along and
the policeman walked up to him and, plac-
ing his hand on his shoulder, said: 81 want
you.n ''What form asked the man. Be
cause you have beer on your mustache,"
answered the officer. Then the man refused
| TO go, unless he showed badge, and finally
pulled away from the officer and went about
his business. Taylor denied that Mcbride
made any attempt TO rescue the man, and
as far as he knew the barroom was closed
at the time and all during the day.
City Attorney Adams asked a question,
which was objected to by Mr.. ducignon,
and the former said he was only looking at
| probabilities when he asked 1t. Taylor
| caused considerable laughter among the
audience by replying to the city attorney:
| II am not discussing probabilities but
| facts" Taylor stood cross-examination
well and never wavered in his testimony.
! Mcbride, in his own behalf, stated that his
| place was not open on that Sunday, as he
| without his knowledge, unless they broke
| down the door, which hadn't been done.
r. r. Richards. Esq, opened the argu-
ments. he made the point at the outset
| that the first section of the Sunday ordi-
nance, under which both Marks & Co. and
Mcbride had been fined, was null and void
from the fact that it was verbatim the
state law, and therefore could only be con-
sidered by state tribunal. He backed up
his pOgiti0n with half dozau anfb ritiaa
LAWYER RICHARDS ARGUMENT.
The attorney then referring to the case of
Marks q Co.. said he thought it was carry
ing things little too far to fine a man such
sum as $25 for what under any circum,
stances was only technical violation of the
law. 1t had been shown that the firm had
always been law-abiding in regard to Gloss
ing their place on Sundays. and the council
should consider that in their action. In
asking the aldermen to remit the fine i'm.
posed by Mayor McDonough, Mr.. Richards
said he didn't want 1t understood as a re-
Election on the mayor or police court, but
| he simply wanted what he considered JUS
tice.
City Attorney Adams replied to Mr..
| Richards. He said he was not speaking in
| the position Of a solicitor general or prose-
| cutor, but only as an adviser of the council
| lie denied that the first section was null
| decisions OF the supreme court in similar
cases to the ones on trial where the muni-
| cipal ordinances were upheld. He told the
aldermen that if any doubt rested on their
minds about the ordinance they should give
the benefit Of that doubt to it, and not de-
clare one of their own statutes invalid.
| Such should properly be only decided by a
higher court.
MR.. DUBIGNoN's ARGUMENT.
Mr.. duBignon closed the argument in
fifteen minutes speech. He said the
whole question in regard to juris-
diction for the council to consider was
whether or not the offenses on trial
were indictable in the state courts, and if
they were the police court had no
jurisdiction nor the mayor any right to fine.
He called attention to the case of Klug
against the city, which was decided by the
supreme court adversely to the latter sew
eral years ago. In that case Mayor Lester
fined Klug in the police court for keeping
his bar open on Sunday, and after
ward the superior court did like
wise. And that decision was a cor
| rect one,h said Mr.. duBignon. "for
| if a man can be- tried and punished twice
| for the same offense the fundamental prin-
| ciples of our constitutional liberty would be
| destroyed"
| After going rapidly over the law Of the
/
the Mcbride case. . / am not here said he,
ito defend Mr.. Mcbride against the charg5
or selling liquor on Sunday or hav-
| ing his door or gate open. hut for
| the purpose of defending him against the
| charge of keeping his place of business open.
| There is only one witness produced by the
| city on whom you can at all rely, and that
| Is Stewart. His evidence has been satisfac-
| toriy met by Mr.. Taylor, respectable
white man, and I submit that if there has
been any offense at all the state courts are
the proper tribunals to try it, and not the
| mayors court"
He then intimated that Stewart could
| hardly have displayed such zeal in hunting
| up witnesses for Policeman NeiGlinger un-
| less there was some reward, for said he,
I'VE don't often find such characters p sing
| as conservators of the public welfare
THE MAYOR SUSTAINED.
As soon as argument was concluded Mr..
| Richards renewed his motion to dismiss the
case of Marks s. Co. and remit the fine. for
want of jurisdiction.
Mayor McDonough informed the council
that he was ready to hear any suggestions.
Alderman Cam moved that the action of
| the mayor be confirmed.
Alderman Carson said that he felt con-
strained to vote against the motion, as he
| considered that the violation was nothing
Alderman Harmon informed the mayor
| that he should do likewise on the same
| grounds.
| The action Eof the mayor, however, was
sustained, Aldermen Cam, Harmon, Nc.
CURE and Reed voting in the negative.
| Alderman Mills then moved that the same
course be pursued in the Mcbride case, and
Alderman Cam called for the yeas and
| nays
| Alderman Harmon said that he would
vote against the motion for the reason that
he was satisfied that MIR. Mcbride was not
guilty. Here we have" said Alderman
Harmon, three negroes testifying for the
city, two of whom admit Icing drunk, and
only the third making any charge. On the
other hand is the testimony of MIR. Taylor,
areputable white citizen, and the statement
of Mr.. Mcbride himself. Officer
| Neidlinger does not undertake to
swear that the bar was open and admits
that he knows nothing about it. Whose
evidence are we TO take, the negroes or the
white men'sl | will take the latter and will
| vote no."
| Alderman Carson said as he had very
| grave doubts in regard to Mr.. McBride's
guilt from the testimony admitted, he
| would also vote no.
Aldermen Reid and Mcclure also gave
notice that they would do likewise, and the
vote resulted as follows:
YEAs--Mills. Bailey, Cam, Haines, Mel.
drim and O'Brien.