The Indianapolis journal., 1895-03-15

IL he occupies the same building, from
passing through on a Sunday or holi-
day to make a social visit There is
nothing in this. The law merely says
that the going into saloon during pro-
hibited hours by persons other than the
proprietor and family shall be prima
facie evidence of guilt upon the trial Of
cause charging the proprietor with
violating the law Prima facie evil.
dence is easily overthrown by direct
evidence, and the proprietor of q saloon
arrested under this provision would only
have to show that the person or per-
sons who entered his place did SO for
legitimate purpose. In fact, the police
will doubtless be instructed not to make
arrests unless they have reason to be-
lieve that the law is being violated. 1t
is not to be supposed that the police
will make arrests merely for the sake
of making them, or that cases will be
brought into court without something
more than prima facie evidence to sup
port them.
The provision in regard to local op-
tion is as follows:
Sec. 0. If, three days before any regular
session of the board of commissioners of
signed by a majority of the legal voters
of any township or ware In any city sit
the the auditor or of the county against the
granting of a license to any applicant for
the sale OF spirituous, vinous; malt OF otnsr 1s
State of Indiana, with the privilege OF al,
lowing the same to be drunk on the prem
ises where sold, WITHIN the limits OF said
township, or city ward it shall be unlawful
thereafter for such board of commissioners
to grant such license to such applicant
fhar1f0r during the npri0d a
from the date of the filing of such remon-
STRANGE; If any such license should be
the same shall be null and void, and the
holder thereof shah ,e liable for any sales
OF nquor mace oy MN, the @ same as a. II sucn
ber to constitute majority of voters herein
referred to shall be determined by the az
ward for candidates for the highest office
at the last election preceding the Ming of
such remonstrance.
under this section, remonstrance could
be filed against the granting of license
to any applicant, or whether it must be
against granting to some particular ap-
pliCant Reading the whole section
together shows quite clearly that it
means the latter. The remonstrance
must be against granting to a particular
applicant, and if the requisite number
of voters sign the remonstrance 1T holds
good against that applicant for two
years. But if there were a dozen or a
score of applicants there would have to
be as many remonstrances The Green's
burg Review says:
The question has been raised as to
whether the petition shaAi be circulated out
side of the ward in which ,le person de-
sires to sell. If it cannot, then the clause
is weak. If the language is to be taken
as Worded, it does seem that an entire city
may demonstrate against any person asking
for e. license in any one ward In a city
This being the correct interpretation, then
there is chance to deIeat every applicant.
But, If the remonstrance is TO be restricted
to wards In Cities the chances for opening
saloons good.
The language of Section 9 is quite
township or ward can sign a remon-'
STRANGE against an applicant for license
in that township or ward. To permit
residents of one township to remon-
strate against the granting Of a license
in another township would not be local
option.
The provisions of the law relative to
blinds, screens, etc., only forbid their
use during prohibited days or hours Of
business. The obvious intent of these
provisions is to promote the enforcement
of the old law by enabling the police
to see al glance from the outside what
is going on within during hours and on
days when the sale of liquor is pro-
hibited. There is nothing in this pro-
vision to interfere with any saloon keep
er except such as have been violating
the law