The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1899-08-07
NEW LIQUOR ORDINANCE.
It Will Again Be Before the City
Council

The liquor ordinance which failed to
pass the city council a few weeks ago
will be brought up again at the council
meeting tonight, and its friends hope to
have enough votes to pass it. 1t is said
that it would have passed before had
there been a full attendance of the
council. AS it was it received six votes,
one less than a majority.
The ordinance is intended simply to
correct the old one which was inVali-
dated a few months go by decision of
Judge Hazen, who declared it void on
account of a technicality. The new
ordinance was drawn up with a view to
meeting the difficulty brought to view
by Judge Hazen's opinion. Under the
ordinance which is now in force no Jail
sentence can be imposed upon a jointist
and there can be no such thing as a
search and seizure. The new ordinance,
it is said, will provide for both these
features.
The passage of the ordinance when it
was introduced before was opposed by
Councilmen Morgan and Hughes, who
took the ground that the city ought not
to attempt to handle the joint question,
but ought to leave it for the county off,
cials to wrestle with. This is what de-
feated the ordinance.
Councilman Willard, the other cOun-
Gilman from the Sixth ward, was absent
when the ordinance was voted on. and
as Colonel Hughes opposed it, it's de-
feat has been laid at the door of the
Sixth ward by. some people, but the Pot
win people Indignantly deny that they
are opposed to the proposed ordinance.
On the other hand, they declare that
they are almost unanimously for it.
THE sentiment for the enforcement
of the law in the Sixth ward said Jas
A Troutman, lis practically unanimous.
Even the anti-prohibitiOnists who live
there have no sympathy with the joints
and dives and think they ought to be
suppressed If the members of the
council from that ward represent their
continents they will vote for the pend
fr.7- In
squarely upon the side of law and or
DER
Thomas Martin. vice president of the
Central Union Accident and Life In
Surance company, said: L am emphat-
ically in favor of the passage of the or
dinance, and can not see why our cOun-
cilmen should oppose it,
A. L. Atwood, said: Il believe the
ordinance should be passed and en-
forced. -
w NJ Forbes, said: There can be
no doubt that the sentiment of our
ward is overwhelmingly in favor of the
passage of the ordinance. If our dele
cation opposes it, they will misrepresent
our ward
George Tincher, foreman state print
ing office, said: Il am in favor of the
prohibitory law and its strict enforce
ment. voted for it, and have seen no
reason TO change my views. The senti-
ment of our ward is strongly in favor
of the passage of the ordinance
men will vote for the ordinance"
Frank Fl. Foster said: I have lived in
been acquainted with many of the prom
inent citizens for nearly IS years. and
people want. In my opinion more than
80 per cent of the voters of the Sixth
the nuisance ordinance. For my part, I
can see no valid excuse for opposing the
faG Passage OF the ordiT9nee % from any ra-
lst cannot say that ne is in favor of the
TINS ordnance understand that the
chief argument made against its adoption
the function of the police force to see to
the observance of state statutes If this
tenths Of the work of a police force con-
participants IN assaults. murders, forg-
cries. embezZlements and the like If the
matters covered exclusively by ordinances,
their attention would only be directed to
health, license ordinances, uses of the
street, etc Surely the advoca tes of this
tie thought Their position is too open
to the criticism that their personal tastes
liquor convenient. either for themselves
or their friends, political or otherwise It
nance desire to have the prohibition law
become 50 odious4 by enforcement that
reply that till the opponents of the law
will allow it to have a fair trial. by Ieav-
hands of its friends instead of its enc
mics. I, for one, will keep up an eternal
warfare for the retention of the present
law When it is fairly demonstrated that
the law is failure I will heartily join in
trying something else
Judge S. H. Allen said: s'I have not ex-
amined into the proposed ordinance but
if it embodies a search and seizure prop
oSitfon am inclined to think I should be
against it. am extremely democratic
when it comes to search and seizure lines.
However. I am in favor of strict enforce
ment of the prohibitory law. and believe
that jointists should be given a Jail SEN
tence.''
]. B. Larimer said: ''Potwin. 50 far as
I know, is almost unanimous in favor of
the proposed ordinance I understand
that Mr.. Willard. our councilman who was
not present when it was voted on before,
viii vote for i. I see no reason. why