Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1902-10-29


half, recommended 10 the Council that
fiat license of $500 be fixed upon every
bar that proposes to do business in the
city. This recommendation was the re-
suit OF the executive session that the
committee held after the representatives
of the liquor dealers had been heard and
the question thoroughly threshed out in
secret session. The vote on the $500
license was practically unanimous. the
single voter against it saying that he
would support the action of the commit
tee in the open Council
The inside OF the liquor business was
aired before the committee by those who
appeared in behalf of the Liquor-Dealers'
Association, and some Of the things that
were stated were requested by the COM
,nittee and the liquor men present to be
suppressed The allegiance of the liquo-
dealers to the Democratic party and their
possible breaking away from their old
faith in the event that the Crenshaw
ordinance was passed was discussed.
Druggists; Grocers.
The fact that nearly fifty druggists OF
the city sell liquor over their counters,
under United States license. was an
nounced by one of the representatives, of
the LIQUOR interests. and this was one
of the liveliest pieces of Information
elected Certain Erocers came In for Il
share of condemnation because they I'LL
orders for wliskey and beer and Spit the
profits with the breweries and the WINS
KEY dealers, and violate the law IN tnus
disposing of the alcoholic beverages. Inc
statement that the druggists were dis
posing of whskey, with nothing more
than the United States license. left the
Inference with the committee that they
disregarded the city and State law on the
subject, but paid Difference to Uncle Sam,
whom they feared.
From one Of the representatives, the
committee learned a great deal about the
| conduct Of the liquor business in the city,
that seemed to create considerable sur
| prise The gentlemen who appeared III
| behalf of the liquor interests We're Messrs.
| A W. Rosene, j. ?. Brown. George M.
| Cease. and George d. McBiake- Inc lat
| ter was not an accredited representative
| of the LIQUOR dealers, but he gave the
| committee some interesting bits Of lnfor-
| NATION and mis- statements were decided
! ly the spciest that were presented to the
| committee
Unaltcrably Opposed.
/ The net result of the statements made
! l,v the representatives of the liquor IN
! +erasts was that the association was un-
/ alterably opposed to the proposed slEG
! license offered by Mr.. CrenshaW, but
| would favor an increase of 100 per cent.
over the present tax. which ranges from
| $50 ,lp: but there seemed to be a diver
| eence Of opinion among them as to VIVA :
! would be the best policy for the commit
tee to follow
Mr. Crenshaw who was the principal
| spokesman for the committee, pied many
questions TO the liquor men present. ne
| asked Mr. Rosene what would be the
| effect upon the liquor dealers II the Coun,
Gil passed the 81 1000 ordinance so far as
! their allegiance to the Democratic party
! is concerned Mr.. Rosene was cautious III
/ his reply lie did state. however, that II
! any other party was disposed TO favor the
! Iio1or interests Of the city, he would feei
inclined to give it his support MI
| Brown did not go SO far as MI. Rosene'
| He said he had always been Democrat
/ and expected TO remain Such. ana NC
honed the Council would not turn deaf
| ear TO the interest OF the people whc
had helped elect them to office.
An Unanswered Question.
/ Another question propounded by Nj
! Crenshaw to each of the representatives
| Was. why should not Richmond De com
| nared with other cities in regard 10 lhe
! ruestion Of an increase of license. MS
/ question was suggested by the sta'ehlel''
! in the liuucr dealers resolutions mat this
/ CITY should not be compared "ith o'!iei
! cities. To Mr.. Crenshaw quesuoh 'uei
,,ae no satisfactory answer given Tbs
| ,io,,o,. men did not met this query Will
| Tho same force that other interrosatoIles
| were met. On the point of how many
/ salonns would be compelled TO give ul
! tboir business. if the $1,000 license ordl-
| ,,nce were recommended and pasSe"
| there was difference OF os'lhloal eA'
] messed by the liquor men present. VI.
| thought it would put 200 out OF business
| while one said that there would not %
| more than seventy-five or iltty VINO couio
stand the drain
/! E.~ored n 1.Flnt" License.
The -concensus of opinion of liquor mei
,,,at a Hat license was the pest
,,,acing every saloon on the same p"sis
ca far as license is concerned. Nj W
1 blake argued for an Excise boaro 10 ~
! created by the Legislature for 'eip. "
| CT. wears whose members Silonio ' -
ed i,v the Council. Mr.. Rosene was DIS,
IN favor of such board. Mr.. -Aiie!,, . %
the committee, asked Mr. McBiake II ~
t,,onrht that board could do better 'Iai Ia.
/ tbe iudge of the Hastings Court 10 I'M: !,
! Mr. McBlake replied that he thonsh' :
co,,,d as the responsibility would be al
| ,.,dcd Then it was that he mace ,il'
announcement that the police captains =,
We're responsible for the granting o. -
censes to persons who conducteu uisa -, !.
/ ,,ntablo riaces Some of the members ".
.,ot seem to be aware that Judge VIII con
s,,Ited the police captains in regard 10 -. 10
snin. licenses. and there seemed 10 pe ~
little surprise when this fact was 1hau'
4 known
All of the liquor men said that tne asno -.
/ c;.tion would agree to an increase ~ -,
resent license of 100 per cent. nri,sIn. ~
!. nm 10 500 or more. They all oec.ale' I.,
,ha. the ordinance proposed by MI. sren
/ shaw would drive them out OF business :
s,d snd would not get rid Of the dives; ,s = . ]
i.,tsnd.d. Mr. Brown gave the co1nln.,,s' .,,e
1 dstasled account OF the expenses .na
=. incurred In the conduct ct bis et1slnsA e's'