The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-08-31
POLICE AND SYNDICATE
SOME FIGURES SENTINEL USED IN
DEFENDING TAGGART ANALYZED.
"Anti" Saloons Did Not Dare Take
Chances, While the Syndicate
Places Run at Full Blast.

Thomas Taggart was elected mayor and
what kind of beer he handled. In brief
introduction, under the head. What the
Record Shows" the paper said:
The records show that 153 arrests for
violating the LIQUOR laws have been made
during the two years of the, administration
OF which l04 or more than two-thirds, ham
died syndicate beer. Seven more handled
syndicate beer chiefly, so that, properly Ill
OF the lo3 arrests We're syndicate arrests
rms number exceeds the number Of nom
syndicate arrests considerably more than
the number of syndicate saloons exceeds
| the nonSyndicate saloons"
Accuracy is essential or should be essen
tial, in ''springing the records" The Senti-
mel is inaccurate in Analysing its own pro-
ductiOn. 1t speaks of 153 arrests" There
are many cases recorded where one man
was held under several charges. Properly
classified, the Police Court record shows a
list of syndicate saloon keepers much re-
duced from the figures quoted above. In
another paragraph it is stated that the
names of the companies from which the
various persons under arrest took their
beer when arrested were obtained from
gentleman who is acquainted with every
saloon keeper in the city" If this is true,
the Sentinel was imposed upon Take the
case of Henry Ostendorf for instance. He
is classed as Syndicate" Any one who is
Ostendorf was one of the most defiant men
the syndicate had to deal with at the be-
ginning of the administration, and was one
OF the hrst to sell outside beer. He was ar
rested several times and evidently got tired
of bucking the inevitable. Syndicate beer
Is now on tap at his place on the north
end of the "levee" and has been for sew
eral months. The last time he was ar
rested was in July, 1896. over a year ago,
according to the published record The
gentleman who gave the information as
to the kind of beer sold by the saloon men
when arrested must have phenomenal
memory to be able to tell for. two years
back what kind Of beer men sold at that
time. What they sell now does not prove
what they sold then. Many who were sell
ing nonsyndicate beer at the incoming adj
mlnistration We're cOerced or induced"
into selling syndicate beer, and this one
fact has had more to do with angering the
anti-syndicate dealers than any other.
INSPECTOR AIANNING'S MEMORY.
II there is any man in Indianapolis who
is acquainted with every saloon keeper in
indianapolis" as is the papers informant,
according to it's own admission it must be
Mayor Taggart's license inspector John f.
Manning. Although his name is withheld
by the paper it is known that he saw and
approved the record at the city clerks
office, where he gave such information as
the city clerks deputies were not able to
do from memory. Anti-syndicate dealers
WOulu ike 10 KNOW WneIner Mt Manning
mas private record in which is recorded
the names of nOnsyndicate saloon keepers.
Ihey are unable to believe that his memory
is good enough for him to indicate what
kind of beer is sold in the five hundred or
so saloons in this city. If his memory was
at fault in the Ostendorf case, it was
doubtless at fault in other cases. The
Journal has no way of telling what kind of
beer was sold in all the saloons two wears
ago. But % of the cases recorded in the
sentinel were in Police Court this year and
q large portion appeared before July of
There are many very significant facts dis
closed in that telltale record. For instance
of the 104 cases--not arrests-recorded
against syndicate saloon keepers, assuming
Tor the sake Of the argument that the
paper division is correct, fOrty-seven were
dismissed or the prisoners We're discharged,
but hfty-seven fines being inflicted. In
eight of the entries the paper does not at
tempt to show what kind of beer was sold
1t presumes that they sold both kinds of
beer. Six OF them We're discharged or dis
missed, making tifty-three cases in which
the offenders escaped.
The character of the charges under which
nonsyndicate saloon keepers were arrested,
as shown by the published record goes far
toward proving that they were kept under
close surveillance and subjected to a series
Ct prosecutions. There is the case of Louis
Harris. Dec 3, 1895, he was charged with
selling without license, selling without city
license and selling on Thanksgiving day.
1t was very easy matter for the police
to ascertain whether he had a license be-
fore making the arrest, as Mr.. Manning is
employed by the city to know whether Ii
cenSeS have been paid. Harris was dis
charged, as the cases were not sustained
Ada Webster was also arrested for selling
without license. The case was dismissed
against her without trial. George Hahn
was arrested on the charge of selling after
II o'clock at night. He did not sell syndi-
cate beer Other saloon keepers at that
very moment were really guilty of that
kind of a violation of the liquor law. but
were not mOlested. The case against Hahn
was dismissed. Phil Mcguire was another
charged license q
charged Such charges as giving away
liquor on Sunday selling to minors, sell
ing on Sunday and many others were made
against nonsyndicate saloon men. When
the cases came TO trial they were not sus-
tanned. The result was that of forty-one
nonsyndlcate saloon cases fines were in
tlicted but in tWenty-fOur. To any one who
is at all acquainted with the saloon stua-
ton it Is perfectly plain why more nom
syndicate saloon men are not arrested.
They know and have known all the time
that they were to be held to the closest
letter of the law. Some of them dared to
disregard the law as they saw their neigh
bOrs doing and were arr ested. This sort Of
experience convinced them that no infrac-
tons would be tolerated from them and
they were afraid to risk arrest.
1t was this unWritten histOry-proOfs of
its existence creep out all through the pub
lished record-which led to the Mozart Hall
meeting. 1t was true, as recorded in the
Journal at the time, that the purpose of
against the methods pursued by the adj
mnistration in giving the syndicate the
best OF II IN the enforcement OF the nQQOr
laws" The men who were there that day
many of them simply wanted to be ac-
corded privileges given to the syndicate
patrons.
An examination of the names Of syndi-
cate saloon keepers published disclOses the
names of many who have been notorious
law violators. and several of them have
been compelled by the police to quit bust
ness entirely because they were recognized
as harboring thieves and in other ways
endangering the welfare of the city
THE SENTINEL'S ADMISSIONS.
The Sentinel itself acknowledged in its
reports of the Mozart Hall meeting that
the syndicate had been running things with
a high hand, when it said, in the issue of
last Thursday that it was not long before
it became apparent that the Indianapolis
Brewing Company had anticipated the ac-
ton which the opposition intended taking,
for, scattered through the hall in groups"
said the Sentinel could be recognized
many saloon men who have been known to
be close TO the syndicate, and, indeed, quite
a number who have been for long time
in order to continue in the business of SELL
ing beer-been compelled to submit TO the
domination OF the syndicate.
This followed the statement:
when it was noticed that the name of
not one representative of the indianapolis
Brewing Company was signed to the call ii
became apparent that the fight, which has
for a long time been pending with the In
dianapOis Brewing Company on the defen-
SiNe and the other local hreWeries and
brewing agents in the attack, was to crys-
tallized in the first open battle of a warfare
which promises to be bitter and prolonged"
<-e-r-----------
Books for the Soldiers Home.
To +ba Editor of The TndiaDarolis Journal.