The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-03-10

want TO near arguments neither his col
leagues nor himself desired TO he heard.
This ended the Burke case, which has
dragged its slow length along through
six hearings.
THE sAMAsKy CASE.
| Lawyer Benjamin l. Dennis tnen took
| the char vacated by Mr.. Mccarthy as the
| prosecutor In the Samasky case and CLERK
Hayden read the following complaints:
To the Honorable the committee OF the
having in hand the investigation OF the
conduct of the license commissioners OF
said Providence:
Respectfully represents AdoIph Samasky
OF Providence that about .Septembey, 1890,
he bought of one, Louis Astrelia, having
license and applied TO said board OF
license commissioners for transfer to
him at 145 Manton avenue.
A hearing was had before said commits
sioners at which said commissioners,
when enquired IL there was any oblec-
tion, so that might have an opportunity
| TO meet II, openly said that there was no
objection TO me and no objection TO the
| place. A certain wholesale liquor dealer
| had threatened that this transfer should
not be granted unless his wishes concern
ing matter which had nothing TO do
| with the matter were complied with.
\ While 4 could not believe that such a
threat could be made to have any force
with the commissioners yet, inasmuch
| as the CONT issioners for some time took
no action on my application ! prevailed
upon their chairman to call a special
meeting to finally act upon it and to give
| further hearing IL there was any objec-
tion. And at that meeting no
| objection was raised except concerning
| the matter 10 which the liquor dealer had
referred, and tbereupon after retiring
| from the commissioner presence ! am
informed that the commissioners rightly
| considered said matter of objection was
outside of and had nothing TO do with the
merits OF the case and voted four to one
| to grant the transfer, whereupon COM
| missioner and friend of this liquor dealer
with show OF indignation, move to re-
consider said vote and said vote was re-
considered and the transfer refused by
vote OF three to two. And / believe and
affirm that this action'of the commission
ers was not their impartial act and
judgment on the merits of the case and
charge the same was brough ht about by and
was the result of secret interference and
private and personal influence OF said
liquor dealer. Whereby, having been
put to considerable expense for rent and
in fitting up my place and bringing for
ward said application and hearing 1 was
caued the loss OF large sum OF money.
Wherefore, request that the conduct OF
said license commissioners In this in
cation by this honorable committee.
M ADOLF SAMAsKY.
Mr.. Wilson said that there appeared TO
be something concealed IN this compIi-
ment. 1t referred to certain liquor
| dealer, but did not state who he was. 1t
referred also to certain license commits
| sioner, but didn't name him, and he SUBJ
mitte1 that the license board should not
be called upon to answer any such vague
and indefinite charge. The complainant
| should include both the name OF the dealer
and OF the commissioner referred to so
| that the board might know what they had
| to face.
Mr.. Burbank agreed with this and
| finally Mr.. Dennis, who said he didn't
| draw the complaint, amended ii by in
serting Thomas Grimes as the name of
the liquor dealer and George ii. Burnham
rs the name of the commissioner.
> Mr.. Wilson urged that In justice to Mr..
Grimes, who was not present, and fair
ness TO MIR. Burnham, the committee
| ought not to go on tonight; but ii in
| sisted on doing so, and Adolf Samasky
was sworn. He testified that in Septem-
Der, 1895, he negotiated with Louis
Astreila for the transfer of a license from
1s5 Spruce street to 145 Manton avenue.
He presented the petition for transfer,
| and when he saw IL was not advertised In
| five or six weeks he went to Commission
er Paine and asked him why 1t was de-
layed. Paine said the board would adver-
tise it when it got good and ready. It
| ness was not at the hearing, although
| lawyer Mckinney was. He heard the next
| day that II had not been granted, and
| Tobias Burke told him it had
been knocked out because there was bill
that had got TO be paid. That was a bill
of s140 owed by Astrella to Grimes Broth
era. lie saw Grimes Brothers, but they
said they couldn't help it, as the bill
would have to be paid or the license
would not be transferred. On the strength
OF "a statement made by Commissioners
| Paine that there was no objection to the
| transfer the witness had gone to the ex-
| pense OF lifting up his place and paying
| rent for II. In cross examination witness
said he was not present at the hearing,
| but his attorney, Thomas Farrell, was.
| he was then askedit he knew of any Ii
cense having been granted to that place
and said he. did not. The commissioners
| had not permitted any one else to go in
there with license the last he knew
about the place, but he hadn't been near
| il for some time. He didn't know
| whether the license had been assigned or
mortgaged to any one, but he knew Ca
prom brothers had mortgage on the
| place. He didn't know who furnished
! orsswnether he had ever repaid II or any
| part of 1t. He did not know that Astrella
| had made an assignment and that the as
| signee had sold and transferred the IL
| cense.
| CLERK NIXON AGAIN.
Mr.. Nixon, clerk OF the license board,
was next called and examined. He was
first asked TO turn to his record to see IL
there was any application for transfer
to SamasSy. He found that the applica-
| tion for transfer had been advertised on
the 18th OF September and that the hear
ing was set for October IA. AT that hear
| ing the records showed that the applica-
! tion.for q transfer TO samasky was laid on
the Ia le On the 22d IL was taken up
again and the record showed that 1t had
been granted aud that then the
board immediately voted to recon-
slider. The hoard then voted to re-
fuse the transfer. This was all done on
the same day and at The same meeting.
Did you vote? asked Mr.. Dennis
! Mr.. Nixon declin to answer as Mr.
| Wilson contended that IL was an utterlS
improper question TO ask and an insult to
the commission and to the intelligence
OF the committee. The vote was a matter
OF record aud that record was before the