The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-21
The RemOnStranCeS Against Burke'S
Transfer in a New Light.
PETITIONED FOR LICENSE In THAT LOCALITY.
General Wilson Succeeds After Hard Fight in Getting the
Matter Before the Committee

10 you rencmD DER any WtTe
presented subsequent to the date OF the
vote?'
Mr. Wilson-'I would like to ask you,
Mr.. Mccarthy, IL you care to take up the
time of the committee in going over ad-
mitted facts2"
MIR. McCarthy-"No, l do not IL the
| facts are admitted"
MIR. Wilson-"We admit there were three
remonstrances against the Burke trans
| fer"
/ Mr.. ...McCarthy-"Very well, il you admit
| the Temonstrances of October before
| the granting of the transfer and those OF
/ Dec. and y, subsequent to the granting
OF it, will ask no more questions on that
| point"
"We admit the transfers, +" said General
Wilson, and MIR. Mccarthy proceeded with
| Mr.. Sprague's examination.
"Do you remember the application OF
| Dorsey Brothers?"
81 remember something about it,"
"Were there any remoanstrarces?"
"My impression is there were"
General Wilson--"Js there any dispute
about that? The papers are all in the
| for themselves.
Then Mr.. Mccarthy took up the Burke
transfer again.
"Was the remonstrance of October
considered by the board?"
"Yes, SIR"
"Wss it mvestigated?"
81 couldn't say"
"Do you remember whether the remon
strances presented in. December were con-
| sldered?'
"You mean the ones after the vote to
| grant? Yes, sir, we talked about them"
Ibid you take any actionY"
"No, sir.n
"Why not?'
"We had voted to transfer and we SIM
| ply held it,"
s'How did you withhold it?'
"We found large remonstrance and
| under our rule we didn't want IL to 60
| out"
, "What action was taSen?'
"The license was stopped"
"Were these remonstrances the only
reason?''
eyes, the remonstrances
"Do you remember whether Mr. Burn
ham made an examination to determine
whether the remonstrances of Dec. 3 and
represented a snifcieucy of the land
within two hundred feet to prevent the
issue of the license?"
"No, / do not. 4 know he was going to
| examine, but don't remember the re-
| suit"
"Was any action taken on his report?"
"No, sir, don't remember that he
made report; the mandamus case came
along about that time"
lie ADVISED Mr.. NIXON.
"Did you asa board advise MIR. Nixon
| to withhold his signature?"
"No, sir; not as board. +"
"Did you advise himY''
"Yes, sir; / left a note telling him my
| opinion was he had better hold it until
| the next meeting of the board"
"What meeting did you mean?'
"The next one. ~
"When did you advise Mr.. Nixon to
Withdraw his signature; soon after the
| vote?''
81 can't tell. II was after the remon-
strances came in. l went to Colonel
! Studley and asked him IL the transfer had
been issued and he told me It had not.
! Then he came back and left the note for
| MIR. Nixon"
| "What is the custom in considering re-
! monstrances against place irrespective
of the person who asks for the license"
81 don't understand you. F"
| "Well, suppose man asks for a license
on the LIST of May. a remonstrance is pre-
| sented end the board refuses TO grant his
| application. subsequently, in the same
| year he asks license for the came place;
| is it the rule to consider the remonstrance
| made against the first application?'
| "Ibere is no rule about it."'
"What is the custom, then?'
Usually we don't consider the remon-
| STRANGE"
explain please"
1
! STRANGE we dropped the matter"
"But suppose there was no remon-
STRANGE after the second spplication?'
"Of course, If there was no remonstrance
we would have a right to grant the appli-
| cation"
"would you consider the remonstrance
| presented against the first application as
! good against the second application"
"No, sir; not since the court ruled on
| that matter"
"What rule do you meant"
"That there must be one remonstrance
to each particular application. That's the
way / understood IL.
" When did you have this understand
ing2'
"Three or four months ago. What |
| mean is that there must be re enonstranco
every time an application is advertised. "
"When did the board get that impres-
/ sion2"
al can't tell exactly"
"The Supreme Court decided that
way?"
~ heard that il did"
"Will you fix the time when you got
that impression; was it three months, six
I months, or a year?''
81 will not put the time az alI The
advertisements will show the time
GLOW wi they show it?''
"By the way we granted the licenses. "
lrior TO this time Won considered all
remonstrances as good for y6ar2''
"We generally let II 60 that way"
DORSEY BROTHERS AGAIN.
ado you remember whether the remon-
strance against Dorsey Brothers was con-
| sdered?"
| al can't tell"
"The board has discretionary power7"
"Nes.p
"Would YOU consider the board has n
| right TO withhold a license on the remon-
STRANGE of one individual who didn't rep
Continued on Page A.