The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1896-02-21
WERE THEY SINCERE !?
Continued from Page 1.

hundred fccll'
General Wilson-"What is the object OF
asking questions about what the statute
decides2'
Mr.. McCarthy-"I ask the question to
find out how the commissioners exercised
their discretion"
There was another interchange between
the counsel which Chairman Fuller inter-
rupted with the remark that IL the coun-
sci wouldn't have so much discussion
among themselves all hands would get
along a good deal better.
Then Mr.. Mccarthy repeated his ques-
tion and Mr.. Sprague answered, yes,
We could refuse or grant 1t as we saw MT.
Mr.. Waterman-"I understood you TO
say you couldn't remember one particu-
lar license out of the 14OO or 100 you
granted
"Oh, l meant that was the number
since I've been on the board; not the
number for one year.
GENERAL WILSON CROSS EXAMINES.
General Wilson cross-examined Mr..
Sprague at considerable length. After
Questioning the witness as to what the
Board considered its duty in the matter
of the consideration of remonstrances
previously made against place for which
another application was subsequently made
he asked:
"Was there anything in the transfer OF
the license to To bias Burke exceptional or
from the granting of other Licenses or
transfers."
sNo, sir, none al all"
"Was there anything in the conduct OF
the commissioners, so far as you know,
whereby their action was open TO criti-
cism or their honesty snd uprightness as
commissioners could be called into ques-
tion?"
"No, sir, not that know oi."
THE FIFTH COMMISSIONER ON THE STAND.
This finished the cross-examination of
Mr.. Spragre and the next witness called
by Mr. Mccarthy was Mr.. Charles Edward
taine, also member OF the license board.
"How long have YOU been license com
missioner" was Mr.. McCarthy's first
query.
II have been a member OF the present
board since two years ago last July, ana
j was a nember of the previous board two
years, making four years in all.
II wish to call your attention TO the
place at the corner of Plain and Bishop
streets described in the petition asking
for this hearing and viii ask you IL there
was any remonstrance against Dorsey
Brothers?"
"Yes, sir, there was"
ssWith what result?'
ssMr. Dorsey was notified that re-
monstrance had been presented and he
was told he could present the map show
ing the number of feet represented. He
took no further action SO the matter was
dropped"
"Did he appear at the hearing?"
'Not to my knowledge
"Do you know when the hearing was
held?"
"Yes, the application was advertised
May % and the hearing was June 10,
1857
sswhen was the notice published?"
"You say he was not at the hearing?"
"Not to my knowlege."
"Was the remonstrance consideredf'
''No further han have just told you.
] will say that l consider personally all
circumstances.
"Did you consider the one of Oct. 8 to
the Burke transfer?"
81 did; yes sir"
"Was a map presentedW
"Yes, a rough map on brown paper, 1
"what was the result of the considera-
tion?n
ssThat IL lacked a very large number of
having a majority Of the land within 200
feet. AS near as I could figure it, it did
not comprise more than 20, 900 feet. "
"Was any action taken after the. voter"
"Not that know Of"
'sDid any member examine the local
ityg,
remonstrants to see how much land they
ssAnd he made q reportY'
"No sir, he did not.n
"Then Mr.. Nixon is mistaken about the
matter?"
81 think he is."
'sWas anything done by anyoane else?''
"No, sir; the decision of the court was
that after license had been granted and
the board had adjourned remonstrances
could not be considered"
"What decision was thatf"
"In the Lonsdale canse, / think"
THAT COURT DECISION.
Mr.. wilson-''Mr. Paine probably refers
to the case of Chalmers against the town
of Cum berland. In that case the court
decided that after vote TO grant had
been taken the commissioners no longer
had any jurisdiction over the license for
any cause" i"
Mr.. McCarthy-"Tha is the decision
you speak of as guiding the action Of the
commissioners?p
"For myself, yes. / cannot speak for
the other mem bers of the board.n
Mr.. Paine then went on to state that
during the first year ne was on the board
tho question came up as to whether a re.
monstrance was gooa for year or until it
was withdrawn. At that time he took the
stand that a remonstrance should he filed
against every application. I he law requir-
ed the publication of every application
every day for two weeks. What would
be the sense in advertising applications
IL remonstrsnces held good for year or
until they were withdrawn
The very fact that this publication was
required convinced Mr.. Paine that the re-
monsirsnce should hold good only as to
the particular application against which
IL was filed and not against any subse-
quent ones. lie overheard James 1illing
hast, the lawyer, advising a client that he
must put in a new remonstrance for every
application presented even though he had
to do IL once month. He was glad to
find such an eminent authority taking
the same view as bimself. That was the
stand he had always taken and he believ-
ed it was the same with the other petit
tioners.
Mr.. Wilson-"Did the license board ever
obtain an opinion on this matter from
Citv Solicitor Colwell?''
Mr.. Paine replied that while another
commissioner was with him he had asked
Mr.. Colwell that question about remon-
strances and that he conceded with >-ae
view Mr.. Paine had already given.
n~r " oUu 10 trfvr