Wheeling Sunday register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1882-1934, 1897-12-05
yet been given and Ne restaurant
keepers fear that their liqNor privilege
has been permanently Aken from
FIFTEEN THOUSAND DOLLAM
Is What the Folly of the Charleston CitN
Council Has Cost the Tax-Payers of That
County in Counsel Fees. Alone.

Special to the Register.
Charleston. w. Va, December A.
The long and acrimonious controversy
in the City Council over the granting OF
liquor licenses which began last May
and continued five months. resulted in
making the city liable for the payment
of about SIS, 5000 in attorney fees. The
history OF the liquor license controversy
is briefly this: On or just before the
first of May the City Council granted TO
about thirty applicants permits TO go
before the County Court for retail liquor
license to sell in Charleston. After the
permits were granted the majority OF
the Council got wind of an alleged
agreement between three or more
members 0 fthe Cuoncil and two MEM
bers of the County Court to restrict the
liquor licenses in Charleston TO four
dealers, these members of the Council
and of the County Court to get the
benefit of the monopoly thus created in
the liquor business, and when this be-
came known to the members of the
Council not in the deal they promptly
revoked the permits granted and no.
body got a license. Subsequently the
County Court agreed TO grant about
twenty licenses. or to all who appli-
ed except four offensive partisans, who
had worked for the Democratic ticket
at the late municipal election. During
the long controversy which followed the
Councils action in revoking the per-
mits there wers eight Councilmen who
were in favor of granting the licenses.
while there were six members. and the
Mayor and Recorder, making eight, who
were opposed to granting any licenses
till the County Court agreed to grant
licenses to the four offensive partisans
above mentioned. The Council was a
tie on the question of granting licenses,
and remained so. Finally the eight
members got together and illegally
granted the licenses. Their action was
illegal because they did not have a
legal quorum. However, the licenses
were granted to about twenty-five and
the saloon men began business. Every
one Of them was arrested and brought
before the Mayor, who fined each one
$50 and costs each day The liquor men
took an appeal from the Mayors decis-
ion to the Circuit Court and pending
decision in that court the saloon men
were each fined $50 regularly every day.
Finally the case came on for triaf and
Judge Guthrie. of the Circuit Court, de-
cided in favor of the liquor men. The
defendant in eases of this kind is, by
law, allowed S. attorney fee. The queS-
tion of allowing this attorneys fee in
these cases has been pending in the
Circuit Court until to-day, when Judge
Guthrie heard arguments ard bad an
order entered allowing an attorneys
fee in each of the liquor cases. which
number about 5000, and making the
total amount to be paid by the city
for attorney fees in these cases $4,000.
The attorneys who will receive this
money are Ex-Governor w A. Mac
Corkle, J. E. Chiffon, w. f. Chiffon
and c. S. Burdette The Mayor and
the City Council seem to have been
wholly unprepared for this turn of af-
fairs, which places the city under OBJ
legations to pay this sum of money,
but it seems to be very fortunate for
w. E. Chiffon and S. c. Burdette, both
of whom are largely in debt to the
State