Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-01-23
OUR MAIL POUCH.
setfinr MERCER Right.

SeG1nC mercer
To the Editor of The Dispatch:
In yours, as well as the issues OF all of the
Pittsburg morning papers of Tuesday last
circulating Eere, appeared an article evil
IDENTIFY contributed by the same corre-
spondent, entirely confined to the license
question. In that part Of the article refer
ring to Mercer, in which it is stated that
"thls year the excitement is greater than
ever, husband being arrayed against wife,
brother against sister and children against
parents" remark, that if it is intended
that enmity has thereby been created be-
tween them, that know of no such case at
all, and think am as familiar with the
manner In which the proceedings were con-
Quoted as the writer of the article referred
to. The wife, sister, parent child may
nave signed the remonstrance to protect
the happiness and prosperity OF their
homes, but in no instance has it been done
with any other motive than this.
Again he says: "All this has caused several
eruptions in the churches of this city,
which is untrue. The writer does not know
OF q scintilla OF evidence to warrant such
statement.
Again he says: "On the application there
are 374 signers, which includes large num-
Der OF lea ding business men and influential
citizens" Again his statement of facts is
false. The applicant on his original and ad-
dltlOnal petitions combined has only 3j6 petit
tloners, Il being women and 2S5 men. OF this
iaSG NUMBER there are only about 90 OF the
business men, leading and otherwise, and
Gnese lnciude employers and employees, and
IN point OF numbers and character in this
line they do not exceed the numbers of re-
monstrants; while nearly 100 of the business
men OF the place refused to sign either way
on the ground that they thought it was the
courts duty to decide. this, as it does all
other legal points, without asking their ad-
wee or vote, and almost hree-fourths of the
owners OF the real estate and the wealth of
the town are opposed to the granting of
Incense, and so expressed themselves, either
by signing the remonstrance or orally
to the writer of this when approached upon
the subject.
Again your correspondent says: "On the
remonstrance it was found there were many
names OF persons not of aye, many non-resi-
dents and strange names signed III the same
handwriting" Every statement in this sem
tence is false, and the petitioner and his
counsel, after raking the remonstrance from
beginning to end as with tine-tooth comb,
were able to find but three, and these were
Withdrawn from the remonstrance by coGn-
sci for the remonstrants before the case
came up before the court Tor argument.
1t IS true that the petitioner and his at
torneys, not understanding the worldwide
use OF the ditto sign, did file something like
2O OBJECTIONS, because the sign appeared
alter writing the name of the street on which
one OF q number o: the signers OF the same
street lived and of course, after the court
renders it decision, they will learn some
thing new to them; but as old almost to the
business world rs business itself.
On the other hand, the remonstrance as
hled contained the names of 425 remon-
strants; exceptions were filed by them to 36
names on additional petitions sustained by
affidavit, and exceptions filed 10 81 names on
additional petition as improperly and i'm
providentiy signed when tested by the rule
of court.
1t conclusion l simply desire to state
tnae II there has been any. feeling engen-
dered upon this subject in our town, the
fault lies with the people asking for license,
for the reason that they, in the face OF the
years has refused to grant license on the
Sroand that large maj jority of the citizens
were opposed to the granting OF the same,
still persist in agitating the subject in ask
ing the court for license.
J. j. ALEXANDER.
MERCER, Pa, January 81