Union County courier. [volume] (Elk Point, Union County, D.T. [S.D.]) 187?-1913, 1897-03-11
WHAT THEY FAVOR
The Taxpayers Of the City Paw
or a LiceDse Of $1,000
Providing We Are to Have SA
loops in the City.

Ihere seems to DE dispute owing to
the lack Of information from Pierre as
to whether the Boucke liquor law is in
effect or not. From the best informa-
ton obtainable indications would point
that it was in effect. Going upon this
theory the COURIER reporter circulated
among the business men on Wednesday
to secure from them an opinion as to
what would be the proper amount to
charge for LIQUOR license in Elk Point.
The sentiment seemed to be unanimous
almost in favor of $1,000 license, the
limit for the city, this would make
fee Of 5000 altogether. The opinion of
those interviewed was as follows:
l.. NJ. Taicott:-We've got to have
two saloons l presume and $500 is not
high enough. just as soon have it
$1,000. But make it $500 If that is as
high as we can 60.
NJ. Hoffman License makes nothing
right, but if we have to have 1t make
it S100O-All the law allows.
f. C. Ericson-The full limit. Charge
them SlOO0-not q cent less. Don't be-
lieve in the traffic but if we have to
tax them put it on heavy.
A. B. Parkcr-Anything the people
want suits me.
John Malady-S9OO seems reasonable.
John Nims-It strikes me $500 is all
the traffic will bear.
f. c. Simmons-I am in favor of one
saloon and the tax high enough to keep
the rest out. In Akron the license is
$1,000 and they have order and one
saloon. II $1,000 is the limit that the
law allows charge them $1,000.
Sam Hoffman-If the saloon. keepers
live up to the law they cannot keep
open. Let it be $1,000.
Henry Henkin-It appears to me
that $500 is about right.
F. w. Smythe-Like to see them pay
800 a month, but If the city can only
get $50 a month charge them that.
J. A. Miller-Let the city charge
them $50 month for its share.
N. G. st. Marie-Being new man
here l would rather not express an
opinion.
p. L. Kelly-My idea is that the only
way to regulate the liquor law is by
high license and restrictive features.
$500 or 5000 is about right.
James Flanery-About $500 is all
right.
H. NJ. Wallace-The city ought to
get $50 month. Not having a copy of
| the law am not sure but that the law
does not go into effect until July l.
Geo. Freeman don't think $50 a
month is dollar too much for the city
to get out of the business.
James NortOu--I live outside of the
city limits and Of course have nothing
to say.
0. M. Walters-They are paying $50
month now to the city and we ought
| to get as much in the future.
| S. G. ThOrntOn-FOr q man who
wants to run saloon $1,000 is not any
too much. I am in favor of one saloon
run right, SO the license ought to be
high enough.
| G. d. Lufkin-I would not hesitate on
charging the saloons $1,000. 1t ought to
be $1,000. The less the number the
better.
G.. f. Krause-The city should get
$50 month anyway. A low saloon is
the worst thing we can have.
A. d. Kellar-S6OO in clean, cold
cash for city. 5000 is not enough.
Better have 1920 out of two than out
of four.
Geo. Hasson 5000 for city. It's the
limit and not high enough. We want
all the money we can get out of it.
Tax them all the traffic will bear.
Don Franklin-In my opinion $500 is
reasonable. That would leaye $500 for
the city.
j. F. Reid-It seems to me that $500
is about the correct figure. That means
$66 &C month or S4l.66 to the city
each month.
]. S. Talcott--I am in favor Of high
license. Ten hundred dollars seems
very reasonable, which would leave
$500 for the city.
F. NJ. Gilmore am opposed to
local option but favor the highest
license the traffic will bear,
A @. Ringsrud-As I view it $500 is
low enough. would prefer $1,000. I
do not like the idea of the state prac-
tically bilking the cities out of 1900 for
every saloon.