The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-09-16
In! i. Towns About
Wellington.

iOui lifc odiAy -hdli.
The city council meeting last night was
full of interest. A large delegation OF
the temperance people were there TO back
up their petitions and present them IN
as strong a light as possible. On the oth-
e. hand. the joint element had quite
representa- ton, but none Of them did any
talking, with the exception Of ex-Mayor
w r Savage, who seemed TO be their
spokesman. The mayor and all the coun-
cilmen were present. The Ministers
union was represented by Revs. E A.
Hoyt, II. Doughty, ]. G. Cunningham.
and B. F. Pugh. Others conspicuous
among the temperance delegation were
Mr.. and Mrs. Thomas Buttrey, Miss Liz
zie Campbell, Prof. W. T. Butcher, and
Messrs. John Porter, Sumner Whiuson,
Orville Frantz, W. II. Schultz and A. F.
Cobean.
Before taking up the Temperance petit
tons, the council heard the monthly re-
ports OF city officers, and also reduced
the salary OF fire chief from $40 PEI
month TO 81 for each fire actually at
tended. Councilman Demuth also intro
duced another bicycle ordinance, which
went over 10 the next meeting for its
second reading.
The petitions were then taken up.
Those OF the w. c. T. L. and the Ep-
worth League were read, when the fur
Their reading of petitions was stopped to
expedite matters. Upon motion ot Mr..
Crane, the malt ordinance was read. An
ordinance repeating the malt ordinance
was then read and placed upon its pass
age. The matter Of repeal was then
opened for discussion.
Councilman Graft spoke first. He de-
clared himself in favor Of repeating the
malt ordinance if by so doing any assist
ance would be rendered the officers in
enforcing the state prohibitory law. He
said that since this question of repeal
had been advocated by the officers 10
whom ne referred, he certainly believed
they thought the repeal would remove a
barrier.
The next to speak was Councilman
Crane. He opposed the repeal openly,
and cited Mayor Thompson's adminis:ra-
ton as an example Of prihibition fail
ure
Councilman Denmuth wanted 70 do all
in his power 10 enforce the prohibitory
law, and if the malt ordinance was a
barrier, he favored it's immediate re-
peal.
The expression Of Councilman French
was that the malt ordinance in no meas
ure licensed the selling OF intoxicants.
and therefore he was agains; the repeal
Just here City Attorney Woods interpos-
ed the question: do you not think it
wrong. Mr.. French. TO tax a man $500
year for doing a legitimate business?"
Mr.. French replied that the high tax i'm
posed upon jointists was the result Of
custom established in saloon states, at
which reply the temperance people all
smiled
Mr.. Graft said: 81 am informed that
certain officials have said that if the malt
ordinance be repealed, they will do all in
their power to close the joints. I want to
put these officers on record. l want them
70 get up here and testify what they will
do" Mr.. Graft then called upon City At
torney Wods, County Attorney Rogers
and Marshal Grinstead for their reply.
They each one stated that they would
do all in their power to stop all Illegal
liquor traffic. provided the malt ordin-
ance De repealed. They all considered it
a barrier.
Councilman PembeT spoke in favor Of
repeal since the officers had pledged
themselves 10 do their duty. THE pro-
hibito-y law has as much right TO re-
70
marked Mr.. Pember.
Councilman Crane added that the malt
ordinance did not act as barrier, in his
opinion. and therefore "the city wants
the $500 license tax and no repeal"
A motion by Mr.. Graft to adjourn was
lost.
Councilman Damuth forcibly remarked
when ii comes to such pass that We
cannot govern our city without the aid OF
money obtained from an evil source, we
should surrender our charter TO the state
and p!0w up our streets. I do not be-
lieve there is any revenue derived from
Illegal traffic"
a statement of the amount OF so-called
revenue obtained from the joints be-
tween January !, 1896, and January l.
1897, was given by Mr.. Saylor. The
amount was s95795. He argued that this
amount could be easily raised by the levy
Of a nominal tax.
The motion 10 put the ordinance upon
the second reading finally came 10 a vote
The vote was a tie. Councilman De Voc.
Saylor. Pember. Graft and Demuth vot-
ing aye, and Councimen Luening, Crane.
Gelino. French and Dean voting no. The
motion was lost and the second aiding
Of the repeating ordinance went over 10
The next regular council meeting. The
council then adjourned. The only coun-
cilmen yho did not express their views
were Gelino. Dean and Luenlng.