The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1898-12-08
What Business Men Say.

ner OF obtaining property owners con-
sent to saloon licenses being a matter OF
much public comment, q HERALD re-
porter interviewed a number Of business
men directly interested, with the follow.
ing result:
DR.. Hill: Tom Lund has control Of
the council and lie twisting them about to
suit himself in great shape.
Henry Allen: think the new saloon
ordinance 10 all right.
W. L. Steinweg: The ordinance re-
pesling the former one giving property
owners the right to prevent saloons from
encroaching on business blocks was A
great surprise to me, and though have
not read it, from what learn of it there
has been grave injustice done to realty
owners In this matter.
George Donald: While am not a a.
loon frequenter. still think that Lund is
entitled to consideration by the council,
because he built his house and obt aimed
his license for the liquor business, and it
would be manifestly unfair to now de-
prive him Of the result OF his investment,
20 long as he conducts an orderly place.
l. II. Dilis: The whole thing smacks
OF class legislation. It is unfair TO prop
erty owners to deprive them, as the new
ordinance practically does, of their say 10
the matter OF saloons occupying business
blocks. am emphaticnlly opposed to
the new ordinance regulating the saloon
business in the manner it proposes.
Frank Horsley: The old saloon ordi-
nance was q good and a just one and
should not have been disturbed.
Caspar Feuerbach: The new saloon
ordinance 10 all right. Tom Lund has
conducted decent esta blishment and in
vested his capital and should have the
right to continue.
Frank Spain: 1t was wrong in the
council to shift the burden on the prop
erty owners requiring them to protest in
the matter OF saloon licenses. It will re-
qulre twelve property owners now to pro-
test against saloon license, and OF course
this practically annuls oil effective oppo-
sition by property owners. The ord-
nance should have remained as it was.
j. W. Thomas: Mr.. Lund has con-
Quoted quiet and orderly business and
1t was unfair to threaten the destruction
OF his property after the council had &C.
quiesced and authorised him to carry IL
on. I think the new ordinance a fair
one.
Phil Otter: II has been reported that
my firm was going to move on account of
Lund's saloon being in the block. The
reason we are going to move lie on ac-
count Of larger space being required. We
ind no cause Of complaint, as Mr.. Lund
10 conducting q very orderly place.
would not consent to any other saloon
coming in, however.
Henry Otter: When a man puts up
building and is assured by the city
at the time he may conduct his saloon
business it is not fair to afterwsrd de-
prive him of bis interest. Tom Lund
conducts an orderly place and should be
allowed to remain.
John Mechtel: As far as our bakery
and confectionery business is concerned.
and we are next door to Lund's, we would
rather have him there than not. The
new ordinance suits me very well.
Louis Janeck: / think the council, was
very inconsistent in passing the new or
dinance, to say the least of it.
Nick Hartung; The new ordinance
suits me very we'll.
Charles McEwen: It was agreed in
the start that Lund should carry on the
business and think he should be al
lowed to continue.
DR.. Taft: II was understood when the
town was founded that no saloon should
ever be established on the east eide of
this block. When Metzger wanted to
build be could find no one to join him in
building party wall. Lund came along
and invested his money with the agree
mept on the part OF the city authorities
that he should carry on the saloon BUSH
ness. This he has dona in an orderly
way, and think ii would now he unjust
to GUST him.
Councilman Poole; opposed the or.
dinance on the ground of principle and
not from personal motives.
Fred Parker: | think the new ordi-
nance is all right.
j. X. Ward: The new ordinance ia