Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-05-12

The Council committee on petitions
and circumstances met in executive
session last night to consider the new
petitions of applicants for liquor
license who have been turned down
by Council. Extraordinary precau-
lions were taken to prevent newspaper
men from being present. Why this
was done was not apparent, but it is
a fair inference that some members of
the committee do not desire the gen.
eral public to know their position up
on the license question.
1t was given out that the meeting
would be held in the Office of the
Mayor. City Solicitor Boyce, one or
two members and the reporters as
sembled there. Meanwhile there were
"doins" in the corridor. Then Lieut.
Miohaels called out the committeeman
and the Solicitor one at time, and in
very mild manner, In order not to
excite the suspicious of the newspaper
men.
The meeting was held in the private
Office of the Chief of Police. and the.
door was securely locked. 1t was at
the suggestion OF Mr.. c. F. Bachman
that this precaution was taken. The
committee was not unanimous In
favoring the exclusion of reporters.
w. G. Halter. inspector for the Water
Board, very graciously unlocked the
door OF the Office adjoining the Chiefs
private Office for the representative of
the Intelligencer, but drew the line on
the Register reporter.
The members of the committee pres
ent were Messrs. Bradbury, Bachman,
Bloomfield, Chew, Ritter, Williams
and wicker. The committee first dis
posed of the applicants against whom
no objection has been offered, recon-
mending granting of license to O'Brien
& Gollner, 2145 Market street; Caren-
bauer & O'Malley, 1901 Main street,
and H. l.. Wheat, 1901 Market street.
Then came the heretofore rejected
applications, namely:
Paul Biery, 1892 Market street.
Valentine Leibold, 1923 Market
street.
j. B. Wilkie, Z and 9 Sixteenth
street.
G. A. Landmesser & Co., 1O44 Market
street.
w. o. Walker, 1928 Water street.
Harding & Smith, 1916 Main street.
Richard Wilkie, 1923 Main street.
Otto Fish, corner Eoff and Eigh-
tenth street.
Joseph Barum, 20O6 Main street.
City Solicitor S. o. Boyce read a
written opinion concerning the pro-
posed bonds Of Otto Fish and Richard
Wilkie. 1t was as follows:
WHEELING, W. Va, May II, 1900.
To the Honorable Committee on Petitions
and Remonstrances of the Council of
the City Of Wheeling:
GentlemenA-Your committee has hand
ed me the paper writing executed by
Richard Wilkie and Otto Fish, which pa
pers accompanied their application to
keep a coffee house in the City of Wheel
ing. Wilkie and Fish by said papers
agree that il granted the license they will
conduct saloons in strict accordance with
the laws of West Virginia, and the ordi-
nancesof the city OF Wheeling They make
the following special promise: That he
will not at any time under any circum-
stances or on any occasion whatever, per-
nit any lewu women or girls or any fe-
males of bad reputation to enter his sal
y
drinks - any such women or harbor or
permit them to loiter about or under any
circumstances to enter into or remain in
ms saloon or any part OF ms building
He further promises as q condition pre-
cedent to his obtaining the license, that
he will waive all his rights to notice or
any tiIse desire to revoke his license. l
am asked for an opinion as to the bind
ing effect and force of said agreement,
and also to the effect OF a special bond
holds his license subject to the laws Of the
State and the Ordinances of ths city in
which the license is executed. The ordi-
| nances OF the City of Wheeling embrace
| these questions completely; the ordinance
| provides that the person conducting a
| coffee house shall not permit women of
| the character mentioned in the said agree
| ment to enter the licensees saloon and
| upon violation after a second conviction
! Council, upon notice and a hearing given
! the offender, can revoke the license. 1t
| is my opinion, nrSt, that the agreement OF
| said Wilkie and Fish with the city would
| be improper. for two reasons. first that
! these questions are already provided for
! by the ordinances, and secondly, because
! II would establish contractual relations
! between the licensee and the city, which
! In my opinion, ought not to- exist. As TO
| the waving of notice and hearing upon
| a violation of the ordipance regulating
the manner in which the saloon shall be
! conducted, [ am eff the opinion that the
! city would be taking an unwise step in
| entering into such an agreement; unwise
| for the reason that l doubt the efficacy of
| the waiver, and because. in my judgment.
/ ii promises useless litigation. the provis-
! ion of the ordinances at present giving
the city ample remedy. rs to the giving
| OF a special bond, | am strongly of the
| opinion that such bond would be of no
| effect. The ordinances of the city pro-
| vides the sort of bond saloon keepers
! shall enter into with the city, and it can
not require of any number of saloon keep
| ers other and additional bond than that
provided for by the law and which have
! been furnished by the saloon keepers to
! whose license no objection or protest have
| been made. l therefore strongly advise
| against the agreement of Richard Wikie
| and Otto Fish being accepted by this