The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-05-05
DECENTLY AND IN ORDER
ANTI-SALOON CRUSADERS DECIDE
TO THUS MARK THEIR PROGRESS.
A Legal Point Raised at Mass Meet
ing as to ''Residence District
Plan as Proposed.

A question as to the legality Of restrict
ing saloons to the district north of Tenth
(old First street was raised at the mass
meeting for the further discussion of this
question at Hall-place NJ. Z. Church last
night by ex-Mayor c. S. Denny who acted
as chairman of the meeting. Mr.. Denny
did not seem to have the least doubt, how
ever thai the end sought could be accom-
pished, but advised that the committee
proceed carefully and only after securing
the best legal advice
The chairman was of the opinion that the
safest way would be to follow the Muncie
ordinance 1t was couched in the words of
the Moore law, and simply restricted all
saloons from the residence district without
attempting to define that district. He said
thai there was a question whether the
courts would sustain an ordinance that de-
fined a residence district applying to one
section Of the city and not another. 1t
might be possible to define the exact boun-
diaries within which the saloons might OPP
crate, but the main objection to an ordi-
nance that undertook this was that the
court might hold that the determination
of residence or nonresidence district was
a question of fact that would have to be
proved by evidence, and that there would
be tendency to deny the Council the right
to pass on a judicial question. Beyond
doubt, however it was conceded that I'M
der the decision of the Supreme Court the
Council has the authority to pass a gen
eral ordinance along the line of the one in
operation in Muncie, simply making it I'M
lawful to operate saloon in the residence
district If such an ordinance were passed
interested citizens could commence pro-
ceedngs against saloon keeper in a given
locality, and then introduce evidence to
show that it was being operated in a res
idence district From the evidence intro
duced and the facts brought out it would
rest with the court to decide on the char
acter of the district The ruling of the Su-
preme Court in the Muncie case is suffi-
GENTLY clear, it is said to direct the courts
how to determine this question. A district
in which the great majority of houses are
used for residences would characterize it,
and the mere presence of a few groceries,
drug stores and the like would not remove
it's character
The ex-mayor was not inclined to throw
cold water on the undertaking, but simply
raised objections that had occurred to him
as a lawyer in order to urge that sufficient
care be given the subject. He advised that
progress should be made ''decently and in
order, SO that no back-down would have
to be made later on. He expressed the
deepest sympathy with the movement,
ence of saloons on the young and their
demoraliZing influence on the homes. He
wanted to see them entirely divorced from
the vicinity of the pubic schools.
THE SUPREME COURT DECISION.
Charles E. Coffin, a member of the COM
mittee that is to draft the ordinance, spoke
next, reviewing at length the Muncie case.
lie fl coincide
with Mr.. Dennys. In Muncie man by the
name of John Shaw violated the ordinance,
he said and was fined 800. The case was
appealed to the Supreme Court. The court
passed on every proposition that could have
been raised The court held, in effect, that
it was not necessary to pass preliminary
ordinance defining a residence district, but
that that question was one to be deter
mined by the court The court held that
the State had a right that could not be
surrendered on any occasion nor by any
preteXt the right to regulate saloons in the
exercise of its police powers. He said that
the court declared that when saloon man
took a license from the State it was with
his eyes open to the fact that the privileges
granted under it are likely to be Withdrawn
at any time.
Il do not see how any wise, law-abiding
citizen can object 10 having this thing taken
from the residence district. No reasonable
man can object to its being put in the bust
ness district rather than near our homes
and SchOOlhOuSeS, said he.
He referred to the fact that much money
has been spent on resort on Fall creek,
marks referred to Irons place, near Kis-
sells roadhouse, where large sum has
been spent on summer beer garden Mr.;
Coffin regarded this fact as an additional
reason why the institution should be BAN
ished from the neighborhood.
Il agree with the chairman that all things
should be done decently and in order but
none the less earnestly. What we need is
an earnest purpose that Will not be put
saloon keepers nor brewers-but we are
after the institutions"
During his talk Mr.. Coffin answered in
directly an interview with Albert Lieber
published in yesterday Journal
We are told that no species of legisla-
ton will make men Virtuous," said he
I'VE admit that. We are told that the ma
jority should rule. We also agree to that
and we say that if the majority is not right
we must go to work and change the minor
ity to the majority.
While admitting that legislation will not
make good morals, Mr. Conn insisted that
He denied Mr.. Lieber's argument that
moral suasion should be resorted to rather
than legislation and took exceptions to his
words against the employment of spies to
enforce the laws.
Every man has the moral and legal
that the laws are enforced. he declared
SALOONS AND SCHOOLS.
]. B. McNeeley, a member of the School
Board. declared himself to be thoroughly
IN sympathy with the movement as he felt
every. one must be who has the good of
schools at heart lie spoke of tie enviable
reputation the schools of indianapolis have
obtained throughout the country and said
that it was largely due to the instructors
and teachers.
For every educator along intellectual
and moral lines" said he. I'VE have
saloon to contend with. The intellectual at
tainments of our teachers are measured ny
a high standard. We want to perpetuate It.
To everything that binders or blights the
schools we say hands Off. We know that