Waterbury Democrat., 1902-07-16
WILL 1T SUCCEED?
The New Law Which Threatens
 to Close up Saloons.
SENSATION OF THE HOUR.

eral Uncomfortable Hours for Deal-
 CTS in the Ardent-Have Been Doing Business for Years, But the Law Steps in Now and Says "Git'-A Few
 of Those Who Will Be Affected by the New Law.
 Under the revised statutes relating to the sale of liquor quite a number l or saloon keepers will be affected i'm this city, many of them old and honor able 1n the business. Only few days ago the stringency of the new law was discovered and there is discussion al- ready of having the matter amended Dy the next general assembly. In phraseology there is a great difference between the new and the old law. The new makes it mandatory with the county commissioners that they shah not grant license to any applicant whose proposed place of business s , within 200 feet of a school building. church, public library or cemetery. while in the old law 1t was discretion- ary with the county commissioners to grant license
 NOW 1t is said that the committee ap- pointed by Governor Lounsbury during the general assembly of 1899 over I stepped their power in making it man. datory for the county commissioners to refuse to grant license or renew [ an old one in place where liuuors are sold within distance of POO feet of a church or the other buildings mentioned ln the laws. The power of that com- mission was ito revise correct, arrange and incorporate together the statutes as they stood at the time the commis- sion began work upon them. It was not the intention of the commission. nor was 1t the sense of the appointiye powers, 1t is said that any of the sfat- utes should be changed in their effects. Under the old law the statute regardjnr the granting of liauor licenses was as follows: "All applications for licenses snail be in writing, signed by appll- I, cant, and 1ndorsed by five electors and taxpayers of the town within the limits of which the business carried on under !, such license Is to be transacted. Every < such application shall specify the par ticular building in which spirituous and intoxicating liquors are to be sold. and 1T said building is within 200 feet if a direct line from any church edifice or . public schoolhouse or the premises per- taining thereto, it shall state the dis tance therefrom."
 Every applicant was sworn to fhe \ above, and as may be seen, it did not prevent the county commissioners from /. granting license even were the piace where the license was applied for with- S in 200 feet of the prescribed premises or buildings
 Here is the revised statutes "All ap- plications for licenses shall he in writ ing, signed by the applicant. and en- dorsed by five electors and taxpayers of the town within the limits of which the business under such license is to be transacted. Every such applicant shall specify the particular building in which spirituous and Intoxicating liquors are to be sold, and. if said building is within 200 feet in a direct line from any church edifice, or public schoolhouse, the premises pertaining thereto, or any postofice. public IT. brary, or cemetery, no license shall be 2 granted for the sale of intoxicating liquors therein"
 There is no choice left the commls~ sioners bysthis law and it's effects will be wide-spreading. Many saloons. the owners of which are men of considera- ble standing in their respective conl- munities. will be seriously affected Dy it. Saloons that were doing business before schoolhouse or church were thought of in their vicinity will have
 
 matter. The gentlemen who consti- tuted the revision committee were Don- aid T. Warner of Salisbury, Attorney Henry c. White of New Haven. Sem ator Michael T. KeneaIy of Stamford William A. King of Willimantic James F. Andrews of Hartford clerk of the supreme court, and Gardiner Greene of Norwich. Mir Andrews was asked if there had not been a mistake made re- garding the above and he stated that there had not. The committee were granted two appropriations amounting to about $50 GOO for their work
 Representative Guilfoile was a mem Der of the committee appointed by Gov ernor Mclean to inquire into the work done by the revision commission and he seems to be of the opinion that the commission overstepped their powers.
 Liquor Prosecuting Agent Pieree was asked if saloon keepers within POO feet of private schools, such as parochials and private kindergartens. would be affected by the law and ha said he did not think so, and he quot ed the statute, which makes no men, ton of such schools. Some of those who may be affected are James A. Dug gan, the Savoy hotel, Drescher .& Kiel. Thomas O'Donnell, East Main street; James Ii. Hapeney, Bishop street; Ban iel E. Mack and Charles H, Corners. Phoenix avenue; Timothy O'Rourke, Scovill street. There is also saloon at the corner of Scovill and Spring streets and another on the corner of Spring and East Main streets that may be affected.
 Several saloons in the Brooklyn dis trict will probably be affected by the. new law. They are Christopher A. Dunphy's, which is opposite the Bank street school; Mrs Sarah A. Horigan's at SIP Bank street, and John R. Mix naitis at SS3 Bank street. which may be within 200 feet of St Joseph's Lith- uanian church. In the east end it is believed that John Dunphy's saloonA at 39 Wolcott street, Arthur J. Carey's at 712 East Main street and Mrs Elizabeth A. Lawlors at ITO East Main street, will be affected, as it is believed that these are within 200 feet of the Sacred Heart church property In conversation with a number or lawyers to-day it was found that the general opinion was that the commis- xl,e.f.