The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1899-07-06
A COUNCIL MEETING.
SALOON ORDINANCE MAKES LOTS.
ia 25iItIg OF TROUBLE. s61a
ORDINANCE DECLARED PASSED

4 Is
ORDINANCE DECLARED PASSED
l. 7Lil 17e 11------------ e8 tsuzuA 55aL
But it was so Amended that tits asDead
Letter-Rules of the Common Council {
/ ia are shown to be Inactive by Attor-
/ neys cavanagh and Bohmrich. az
Il 5a5 sai2 G----- - - SD ID VITO
/ The question that is agitating the
minds of the people OF the city of Ke-
Enosha is the question of municipal
ownership. The question was ans
wered once and for all at the meeting
ofthe Common Council held at the
city hall last Monday evening, and
henceforth it is understood that the
Ecity, its officials, its streets and it's
alleys, it's churches and its schools are
under the complete direction and con-
Itrol Of a few large and topulent5 brewing
companies having their head offices in
the city of Milwaukee. 'la 'o8 s9@.'a
P The meeting Of the council Of Mon
Fdsy evening will 60 down in history as
the night on,which a Democratic counl J
Gil. assisted by a Democratic attorney
and an attorney representing one of
the brewing companies, gave away all
the rights. of the city in the way of
control of saloons, and bowed down
before the mighty idol, the Schlitz
brewing company, for the simple reason
that it was one Of the biggest tax
( payers of the city. Was this the rea-
Fson. we question. .5''i- -ll'l W. *5o8
f. The old matter Of the passage Of an
ordinance regulating the distance at
|. which a saloon may be established in.
relation to the location Of churches and
schools, was the main topic Of interest
at the meeting Monday evening, and
the representatives of the saloon
| element won a very doubtful victory. .
| The question Of the passage of the
Ordinance amending the three hundred
| feet ordinance was the first matter Of
] Importance to come before the honor
able ID body. The opinion of the
city attorney as cited in the NEWS Of
Saturday was presented, and after it
! had been placed on file the Council was
addressed by Attorney James Cavanagh
in the interest of the schlitz Brewing
company. Mr. Cavanagh stated the
cause of the saloon in a very eloquent
manner, and said that it was the
Intention of the Brewing company to
run the place at the corner of Union
and North Main streets in an orderly
manner. He stated, that it was the
plan of the company to close up all the
entrances to the place on Union street
and that in the future the only entrance
to the place would be on North Main
street. He said further that it was
unjust for the city Council to pass a
/ law which on the very face of it would
discriminate against only one saloon.
He entered into the history of the
building in question and showed that
iii had always been used for saloon
property, and that one of the terms of
I the sale between the company and Mr..
I Bendt was, that MT. Bendt was to
I secure the right of running the saloon
| from the Council. 1t seems that this
I was secured, and the deal was made.
I Mr., Cavanagh then, dwelt at length
on the reliability of the Schlitz Brewing
company, and begged the council that
they would not discriminate against
such company, IN his plea for the
company Mr.. Cavanagh was ably sup.
I ported by one L. G.. Bohmrich, the
city attorney of the city, and not once
dur'1g the entire debate did any one
4 say one word in regard to the rights Of
| the citizens or the rights of the long
4 list of voters and taxpayers who had
4 signed the petition asking for the pas
/ eage of theiordinancex lfad 50at1e4afI r.
i In order to get the matter started
4 the Council finally decided to vote on
1 the striking out Of the clause, which
Ialloyed some of the, saloons to run in
4 the event of the passage Of the ordi-
finance. The clause was stricken out
iIibY,, almost unanimous vote. The
IScouncil then. we're ready to take up the
.tEmatter of voting on the ordinance.
llIHowever, before this was started, the
IEcity attorney stated that the ordinance
IIcould not be voted on until the amend
IIment, proposed by Aid. Smith, which
.Ilpractically +anulled the ordinance, had
lIlbeen taken up and acted upon. This
Twas contrary to the opinion Of the
IEmayor and the city clerk, but it was
FINALLY decided to vote on the amend
Ement The vote was FIVE to nine
land the mayor announced that the
amendment was lost. This brought
1.-THE city attorney to his feet with a