The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-10
SALOONS TO STAY THERE
CIV OaUNCIL WILL NOT REMOVE
THEM FROM RESIDENCE WARDS.
Democrats Smother the Ordinance In
troduced Under the Moore BILL
Petitions from Thousands.

remaining in that part of the city compos-
ing the First, Second, Third and Fourth
wards. In moving that the ordinance be
engrossed and put upon its passage Coun-
Gilman Payne presented several thousand
petitions from residents of that part OF the
city. The ordinance was opposed by Coun-
.cilmen Golfer, Walcott, Dudley and other
Democrats In order to keep from going
on record the Democratic members buried
the ordinance by a tabling motion, which
did not require a roll CALL instead of voting
directly on the ordinance. Mr. Coulter in
sisted that the Nicholson law would give
the people relief if they wanted it.
In support of the ordinance Mr. Payne
said, in part: I'm the last few years there
has been a wide discussion in this city and
State of temperance legislation. AS to wheth-
er legislation has gone too far is a ques-
ton of opinion. The people have not been
satisfied with too much latitude for the
saloon, nor have they been satisfied with
too strict observance of the laws. How
ever, so much antagonism has been aroused
on both sides that any new measure deal
ing with the saloon question is Immediate
ly denounced by the opposition without
considering fairly its merits. This ordi-
nance is one in line with what is known as
blS NdOOEe Dill, NillCu HAS DG6u cIdSSCQ Will
the Nicholson bill. Whatever the merits
or dement's of the Nicholson law may be,
1 think an entirely different phase of the
saloon questionable home question, if you
please-is presented by this ordinance UNI
der the Moore bill. 1t does not concern it
self with whether the saloon is syndicate
or anti-syndicate; whether the saloon is
kept open after hours; it does not concern
rusf nh he lou SC oI,ca in
a drinking place, nor does it concern itself
with local option, nor any of the bugaboos
that scare the Liquor League. 1 don't
know that this ordinance would reduce the
sale of one pint of beer in Indianapolis. 1t
is not an ordinance to protect the drunkard.
1t is not an ordinance that would prevent
the German the Irishman or the American
from getting his beer if he wants it. 1t
does not abridge personal liberty, as we
know it under the Constitution of the
United States, in any sense. It cannot be
so construed, even by the man who takes
such a notion of abridgement in his head
when confronted by the Nicholson law,
which says he cannot get liquor after IL
o'clock.
This is an ordinance which guarantees
to a. man, when he buys a home, that his
home shall be place of quiet; that his
children shall be removed as far as possible
from the saloon and its influences. l have
personal knowledge of a State where the
observance of saloon laws are very lax,
where there is absolutely no attempt to en-
force Sunday closing or closing at any
other time in the big cities, where the front
doors swing wide open on Sunday, and yet
in this State the law pertaining to loca-
ton of saloons is rigidly enforced There
a saloon is not tolerated within a certain
distance of cemetery or within % certain
distance of a schoOlhouse- l never heard
in that State of a saloon keeper complain
ing against this law. This ordinance before
~Io civ Iiv,nc cav
that the saloon shall be kept out of a de-
fined residence district. AS far as this or
dinance is concerned it makes no difference
whether there are five or nifty saloons on
Washington street from Delaware to Penn
sylvania, whether there are one hundred
saloons on Meridian street from Ohio to
North. It concerns itself with none of
these questions. 1t is not wedge TO break
up the saloon business in indianapolis.
1T is insisted that this ordinance would
cut off a considerable revenue which the
city derives. 1 challenge this statement.
do not believe there Is a saloon keeper,
who. If driven from the residence district,
what if the city were TO lose this revenue?
Is it not worth $3.50 a year-the saloon Ii
relieved from saloon? If this ordinance
were to Top off $4,000 a year revenue 1t
would be profitable investment to the city:
THE press of indianapolis, for the most
part, irrespective OF politics, has encour-
aged this movement Democratic edition as
we'll as Republican editor has spoken in
trict affected have petitioned for the
passage of the ordinance. The sentiment in
the district is overwhelmingin its favor.
MR.. Golfer OPPOSES 1T.
Mr. Golfer spoke against the ordinance.
He argued that, under the Nicholson law.
If the people of ward do not want sa-
loon they can get rid of 1t by remonsrance.
He also declared that the passage of the
ordinance would mean the confscation of
property. "You could not even refund the
man his license fee' he said Under the
law it is only returnable in case of the
death of the licensee. And as to petitions,
l can get a petition for anything. I got
up a petition right here in the courthouse
once TO hang man and the man himself
signed it,.
Mr.. Dudley who is a councilman-at-large
spoke for the people of the South Side, say
ing they did not want a monopoly OF the
saloon business. He thought they were
willing to let the North Side enjoy a part
of the privilege of entertaining the saloons.
He said that If saloons were abolished 1t
would simply mean the opening of more
barrooms behind prescription cases. He adj
mitted that he had taken drinks in North
Side drug stores which were not licensed
to sell for drinking purposes; He believed
in no legislation that would drive trade
away from the men who pay license to Sc
cure the trade.
Nicholson law argument by saying that re-
mOnStranceS apply only to Speclflc saloons
ana II would Keep the residents OF a nelSn-
borhood busy day and night TO keep the
saloons out and then they could hardly
succeed. For this reason that section of the
Nicholson law was not effective in keeping
a residence district free from saloons. He
thought Mr. Dudley'S remarks did not APP
ply sufficiently to the subject to need
answer.
Mr. Golfer moved to lay the ordinance on
the table, but Mr.. Allen interposed OBJ
that two reports had been submitted to the
Council by the finance committee-a major
ity report recommending that the ordinance
be not passed, and the minority report
recommending its passage. He thought one
or the other of the reports ought to be
adopted, and moved the substitution of the
minority report. In support of his motion
it acted on the ordinance, did not notify
the petitioners of the meeting and
after little perfunctory discussion hastily
agreed to oppose the ordinance. Mr.. Allen
himself filed the minority report and he
said he felt that the large number of re-
spectacle citizens whose names appeared on
the petitions ought to have been given a
respectful hearing by the committee and by
the Council
President Costello decided that Mr.. Aliens
motion was out of order and recognized
Mr.. Montgomery, who stated that the
Council was too broad minded to desire to
break up mans business and this would
be the result OF the operation of the or
dinance.
President Costello refused to grant Mr.
Payne permission TO further discuss the or
dinance and MIR. Golfers motion to lay it
on the table was put and carried, the
Democratic side of the house voting solidly
against the ordinance