Omaha daily bee., 1903-01-01

Of Wright II was promptly declared the
sense Of the board that the protestant
had not shown bad faith on the part Of the
applicant, Sherman & Mcconnell.
Not Anxious TO see Figures.
The attorney for The Bee then offered to
make a showing In the matter Of circuls-
ton. proving by the books Of each that the
circulation Of The Evening Bee lie s.Oe5 In
Douglas county; OF the Evening World
Herald. 5.s4i: Of the Morning world-Her-
aid. 1901. and OF the News. 6.439. Hitch
cocks attorney objected and the objection
was sustained. After a few minutes in star
chamber the board granted the licenses
applications for which had been protested
by The Bee.
All other licenses went through without
a hitch. except those protested by Dunn or
OF immature notice and except that one
applied for by Johnnie Wright Of los South
Twelfth street. This was denied on mo-
tion Of Member Wright. for the reason
that applicant is not a At person to keep a
saloon"
Hearing on News Protests.
When the hearing Of the protests filed
by the Daily News was taken up at a pre-
vious meeting held in the afternoon il was
uAAEAl dAhguAAE4 " tthAnlAoaARhNA 'AAhh
that the board would follow the rule that
only the question Of good or bad faith on
the part Of the applicant in placing his
advertisement would be considered and
that the burden Of proof would be upon the
| protestant. The case Of Hans Kruse was
| then taken up and Mel Uhl. manager Of
the Daily News. was called for examination
by Mr.. Van Dusen, attorney for that paper.
Mr.. Uhl testified that he had mailed to
Mr.. Kruse a marked copy Of his paper
containing a notice TO liquor dealers and
druggists" and also a letter notifying him
that the News had the largest circulation
In Douglas county. He mailed these after
he had seen Mr.. Kruse's advertisement In
another paper.
Mr.. simeral. attorney for The Bee. OBJ
jccted on the ground that the applicant had
then placed his advertisement Being
cross-examined b." Mr.. simeral, Mr.. Uhl
said his letter did not give any specific
| figures Of circulation.
In response to a question from Commits
! sioner Wright, Mr.. Uhl said he knew that
at that time two other papers also claimed
to have the largest circulation. Mr.. Uhl
testified that Mr.. Kruse, although invited
in his letter to do so, never called at the
ONCE of the News to ascertain as to the
circulation OF the News, and c. e. Rood,
city circulator Of the News, who was later
put upon the stand, testified to the same
effect.
why Kruse Preferred rms Bee.
Mr.. Kruse, examined by Mr.. Simeral, said
he had advertised in The Bee on December
2 because he believed that paper to have
the largest circulation and to that state
ment he added: And l believe so today"
Tk.N -E-bt ,Ftor he had thCpuhf the mat
ter over he decided that it would perhaps
be best to place his advertisement in the
| world-Herald also and he did SO, but at
that time he had not heard anything from
the News. He had received a notice from
The Bee stating that that paper had the
largest circulation and he believed II. He
did not 60 to any of the newspaper offices
to investigate the question OF circulation.
Mr.. Van Dusen argued ttat in not in
vestigating the question OF circulation Mr..
Kruse had failed in a duty imposed upon
him by the law when 1t required that the
advertisement should be placed in the
paper having the largest circulation and
therefore that he was not acting in good
faith. This point was overruled by the
board and Chairman Broatch announced it
as the opinion OF the board that the pro-
testant had failed to show bad faith on
the part Of the applicant.
Mr.. Van Dusen then attempted to intro
duce evidence on the part Of Mr.. Rood as
to the average circulation of the News for
November and December, but each Of his
questions was overruled in turn on the
ground that 1t was immaterial. On mo-
tion OF Mr.. Wright the board then an
nounced as its findings that the protestant
had failed to show bad faith on the part
- - -
fore overruled. and the board ruled that
It would not go into the matter ot circula-
tion.
No license could be issued to Mr.. Kruse
because Of the protest of I. ]. Dunn. which
has not yet been heard.
List of Licenses Granted.
When the night meeting opened, and
after a star chamber session, during which
the board had agreed upon its course. Mr..
Spratlin Immediately moved the granting
Of the following licenses and the approval
OF the bonds attached. The Daily News
had protested these. but later withdrew
its protests upon losing in the Hans Kruse
case. which had tested the issue Of good
faith for all OF them. The list includes
Edgar Rothery, 33 South Eleventh; Owen
Mccartney, III South SIXTEENTH Walter
Steinmetz. 61 South Tenth; Nelson &
Suong1elloW, 1914 South Tenth; Joseph
Schlitz Brewing company, T9 Ninth:
Charles Krug. III South Fifteenth; Meyer
Klein, 523 North Sixteenth; William But
horn. 34 South Sixteenth; Nick Yaeger. 1904
Farnam; Peter A. Smith. 1872 North Tween
ty-fourth; Andrew Peterson, 61 Pacific;
Hy. Rolr, 25ss Leavenworth; Hans Nelson,
2236 South Twentieth: Charles Nelson, 25l6
Cunning; Gustaf Stepp. 1902 Williams; Joe
Pert. 1IS South Thirteenth; John J. Par
rott. 612 South Thirteenth; J. L. Boyle. 1924
Douglas; A. Haller & Co, 5l3 North Six
tenth: George c. King. 54 South Tenth
Kelley & Todd. SIS South Sixteenth; Hy.
Hitler. 1873 Farnam; J. NJ. L. Schmidt, 1907
Dodge.
Licenses granted at the afternoon session
OF the board on unprotected applications
were to:
Harry Ames. 1903 Harvey; II. b. Peters
150S Farnam: Frank Swanson. 3l2 North
Sixteenth: A. N. Prick & Co, 1901 Farnam
Fred Metz, jr., MOI Cunning; Her & Co, Sl
Howard: Fred HInziker, S3 South Tenth.
Oscar Johnson, AZ North Sixteenth; I. J.
Foley. 1912 DouFlas; SlouI g. Gruncl. Four
a-a IT. 49,