The daily sentinel., 1900-03-10
70 the Citizens
Of Grand Junction


what is known as the first ward of this
city, the city council of Grand Junction
instructed the city marshal 10 appesr
before me and to make complaint against
the inhabitants OF what is known as the
"row," on Colorado avenue between Sec
ond and First streets.
The character of the inhabitants of
this locality was so we'll kno yn that this
fact needs no comment.
l fled information in the county court
against the tenants and the landlords,
and in January, 1899, after a weeks trial
succeeded in convicting one keeper OF
house and tried one of the owners OF
there, but conviction in his
case was defeated because of the action
of the jury in refusing to agree
The expense Of these trials became so
great to the comfy that in justice to the
OF the county at large, felt it
advisable to accept an offer OF oompro-
mise of the difficulty, by agreeing to dis
miss the remaining cases il these women
would move off this row" and the prop
erty owners would decline to rent for inn
moral purposes any longer.
Two OF the property owners, Kate
Voight and Mrs. Briley, were women
whose sole means OF subsistence was the
rental of the houses which they owned
there. In spite of the fact that they
have nearly starved while waiting to get
respectable tenants in that locality
which had suffered SO in reputation in
the past, they have faithfully kept their
word to the authorities and SO have all
the other property owners there Until
lately.
On the 10Th day OF February last am
Informed that one property owner fur
nished his house, and put into possessi
under some kind Of contract two pros
titutes by the name of Minnie Evans
and Doretta Varell, and snce said date
they have been maintaining there a lewd
house.
l am informed that this property
owner gets $50 month for this proper
ty. l knew nothing about it until few
days after wards when Mrs. Briley came
to me and told me that she had faith
fully kept her word aud promise to the
ard that she wanted to do
so, but if his properly was used for this
purpose that she would be forced to
either abandon her property or rent for
the same purposes.
Other adjoining property owners com
planned bitterly OF the character OF these
promises, but for some reason or other
they were called off.
At the time dismissed the former
prosecutions in June, 1899, it was with
an egreement with the county commits
sioners OF this county that it it ever be-
came necessary for the county authori-
ties to act again that we should endeavor
to secure injunctions for the purpose of
the property owners from
these nuisances.
When the matter came up in February
last advised the interested parties OF
this determination and as result
brought suit in the district court in
the name OF Mrs. Briley in which the
court was asked to perpetually enjoin
the property owner and the two female
from maintaining such
house in that locality.
Yesterday Judge Stevens decided that
it was beyond The power Of court OF
equity to grant an injunction against
such acts on the facts set up in the COM
plant.
l take this means of calling the atten
ton of those who are interested in sup
pressing these nuisances in that locality
TO the situation.
do not feel that Mesa county, as a
county, should pay the expenses of pros
scutiug these misdemeanors in the city
of Grand Junction. This city is Of the
second class; it has lis own judicial de-
partment; it elects its own marshal, its
own police magistrate and it has ordi-
nances prohibiting the acts complained
of in that quarter and there is no reason
why the city of Grand Junction should
not be able to enforce its ordinances,
where SO many people appear
to be vitality interested in them.
desire to make no charges as to why
these things happen, simply desire to