People's voice. [volume] (Wellington, Sumner County, Kansas) 1890-1917, 1897-09-16

of Abel, touched upon the worlds
record of murder and arson and led up
to a metaphysical discussion Of the
question before the council by declar-
ing the malt ordinance responsible
for most of the modern ills that ill.,
fict humanity. He finally outlined
himself as being in favor Of its repeal.
Councilman French thought the
present ordinance was not an Ordi-
nance licensing the sale Of liquor, and
was therefore against its repeal.
Mr.. Graf took the floor again and
got down to the gist Of the question
before the council, whether to repeal
or not repeal. He stated that he was
informed reliably that certain
city and county officers had
stated that if the present malt
ordinance was repealed they would
close the joints. Mr.. Crafts vote Ou
the question Of repeal evidently
hinged upon the correctness Of that
report, and stated that if the officer:
in question would arise and confirm
that report In the presence OF the
council, he would vote to repeal the
ordinance. Mr.. Graf did not mention
any names and City Attorney Woods
evidently thought Graf might be re-
ferring to him and he asked Mr.
Graf if he would name the officer OF
officers he had reference to. Mr.. Graf
refused and Councilman Pember arose
and asked Woods this question point
blank:
"Will you try to close the joints il
this ordinance is repealed"
Mr.. Woods answered the question
by referring to the fact that he had
lived here seventeen years, had held
office and had always done his duty
and tried to keep his oath of office.
Councilman Pember was emphatic
in his declarations in favor Of the re-
peal of the malt ordinance. He
thought the ordinance was barrier
to prosecutions Of liquor violatOrS.
Mr., Pember made a very sensible
talk on the general question of en-.
fOrCement Of law.
Mr. Crane again arose and stated
that he thought the present ordi-
nance did not license the selling of
liquor. The ordinance was passed
merely for the purpose of raising
revenue for the city and he thought
the city needed the money.
ThOs. Buttrey, representing the TEN.
perance people, then talked on the
question. He thought the ordinance
should be repealed and suggested that
from a business standpoint prohibit
tiOn was an advantage to the CONNER.
cial interests of the city. The repeal
Of the ordinance might drive a few
individuals from the city, but many
persons OF higher standard OF NOR
ality would be drawn to the city
through the knowledge of the fact
that the prOhibitOry law was thor
oughly enforced in Wellington.
Mr.. Graf attempted to get an ad-
tournament until next Tuesday eve,
ningin order to allow the cOuncilmen
an opportunity to assure themselves
that the officers would close the
joints. The motion to adjourn was
voted down and Councilman Demuth
made talk OH the question of the
citys finances. He pictured the city
as taking money that rightfully be-
lOnged 10 the wives and children Of
drunkardS, and was followed up by
Councilman Saylor in talk along the
same line. Mr.. Saylor gave figures
to show that from January l, 1896, to
January l, 1897, the revenue collected
from the malt joints in this city was
S957.95. He thought it would not be
a heavy burden to require the tax
payers to put up that much additional
money to meet the expenses of the
city if necessary.
Ex-MayOr W. R. Savage was present
at the meeting. The discussion OF
the malt ordinance which bears his
signature carried him back to the days
Of '93 when he was just bursting into
public notice on his career of four
years as chief executive of the city.
The ex-mayOr asked privilege to speak
on the question and he explained the
conditions that attended the enact.