Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1899-12-22
or MAYOR SWEENEY AND CHIEF
CLEMANs FOR THEIR
REPLY
TO THE ANTI-sLor PETITIONS
Is the Open Letter which Was Fur
nished to the Press Last Night
Pointed Out That Fines in
Police Court Go to the Board of
Public Worlxs-Ministers AlIege
That Reasons Set Forth Are Very
Insufficient.

AuCCliu6 ldot &uouudy, IL Hdo luuouhScu
that they would give out statement
for publication. This statement was
expected from day to day. but was
not given to the press until yesterday,
great deal of time having been de-
voted to it's preparation. The reply is
in the form of an open letter to the
Mayor and Chief of Police of the city,
and reads as follows:
Gentlemen:
Your reply" to the Statement of the
Federation Of Churches presented to you
December 5th, was received. We have
carefully considered the reasons which you
give why you cannot grant our petition and
enforce the laws and ordinances, and we
are free to say that, in our judgment, your
position is not supported, much less
proven. by the facts you cite. Eliminating
from the reply" all advices SO gratuitous-
~ given to parents. ministers and
churches, we find three principal reasons
assigned by you why you do not enforce
the laws. Let us examine them in the light
of facts.
/. The failure to obtain justice in the
criminal court. In your reply you state
that several cases, upon which convic-
ton had been had IN the police court
were appealed to the criminal court"
Now, upon examination of the records of
the criminal court, we find that only two
cases of appeal have been acted upon dur
ing your administration In all, eleven
cases of appeal are recorded as disposed of
OF these, three were settled by the parties
themselves paying their fines before the
appeals reached the upper court; and six
were dismissed before the appeal was ar
gued.
CT the two cases of appeal tried, the
evidence in Inc was clearly insufficient"
and the action of the police court was pro-
perly reversed. The ether case is the one
TO which you evidently refer, when you
say in your REPLY that 1t was "the one
deemed the strongest and that. it was
declared by the jury to be not guilty."
We agree with you that the evidence in
this case was clear and sufficient against
the party, and the decision of the police
court should have been sustained. The up
per court is of the same opinion, and, for
the first time in his official career, the
judge of that court 'lectured jury for the
verdict rendered"
This is the only case however, in which
You can claim justice was not done you in
the criminal court. We do not understand,
therefore the assertion in your reply
that lin many other instances of cases ap-
pealed from the decision of police court,
where the evidence seemed to be conclus-
i've, the jury in the upper court did not
sustain the city's case" The judge. of that
nc Iat rer,I1y
have ever been before that court, during
your administration, on an appeal from the
decision of the police court
Now, we submit this question: Is not
this slim basis on which to form the con-
vetion. to which you say you arrived, viz,
that public sentiment is not in favor of
extreme or radical reforms. but rather
content with judieious regulation of the
evils complained of?'' Are twelve men,
constituting the jury in this individual
case to determine with you the question of
public sentiment We say ''siim basis"
for the reason that if you will remember
your .oatns of office, there is nothing said
in them as TO whether you are to have an
option of Withholding the discharge of
your duty under the law on account of the
results that may follow upon an appeal. If
every case of appeal were to be reversed
in the upper court, we submit that does
not relieve the police court in the premises,
and does not affect the discharge of your
duty in the least. For if your position be
a correct one. it would absolve every In
ferior court in West Virginia from admin
istering the law in view OF the possibility
OF an appeal to the supreme court And no
court, even in the darkest days in the juris
prudence of England, ever had as broad
distinction as that
Therefore, We canot agree with you that
your experience in these two cases of APP
peal is conclusive proof that public senti-
ment, as expressed through the jury box.
is not in favor of the enforcement" Of
present laws" Under other administra-
TONS previous to yours, we do not find any
such ground fof complaint; neither was
such complaint ever made. In any case.
we believe the police court is under solemn
obligation to perform its duty, whatever
may be the consequences of an appeal in
the upper court.
2 The failure to secure Justice, In Coun-
Gil, before the Committee on Petitions and
"Reminiscences. You state that you ap-
peared before said committee, and entered
objection ito the issuance of license to
persons who had not needed the citation of
the ordinance as expressed in section IS of
the ordinances in relation to Coffee Houses
and Ordinances" We find that section
imposes fine upon any person keeping a
coffee house or place of public resort, if he
shall suffer any rioting or drunkenness, of
any public lewdnesS or obscenity," etc.
about his place.
The records of the Committee on Petit
tions and "Reminiscences show that on Ap-
I'll 10th, 1899, the Mayor and Chief of Police
did appear before said committee and did
protest against the issuance of license to
TWO parties. The records of Council how
ever. do not show that their protest was
ever carried there. AT that same commit
tee meeting. April 10th, there were the
written protests and petitions of other par
ties against another place. These written
documents were carried with the commit
tees report into Council. and, having con-
sidered them in open session, Council re-
fused to license that place
Now we are at loss to know why the
Mayor and Chief of Police, who began so
we'll, did not persevere and press their
case before Council as a body Why give
such undue weight, in your 'sReply," to
the point made by the Committee on Peti-
tons and Remonstrances, that If appli-
t-.nts were refused, the revenues of the
city would be reduced?" Why should that
have silenced all official obligation. If.
acting upon the advice of competent
counsel" as you state, you had started in
to strike at the root of the condition."
he off aff he -