The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-02

To the Editor of the Indianapolis Journal:
Under the late decision of the Supreme
Court interpreting the remonstrance clause
of the Nicholson law, which limits the loca-
ton of saloons, one class of citizens may
join In the remonstrance because they are
opposed to the location of a saloon in their
wards or neighborhoods, no odds what the
fitness or standing of the petitioner for
such privilege, while another class sign re-
monstrances on account Of the unftness or
character of the applicant Now that the
law is interpreted so as to make all sigma
lures effective against all applicants, reck-
oned fit or unfit. remonstrances WILL of
course, hereafter be signed or not by citi-
zens or their agents on the basis of the To-
cation of no saloons at all. And so the
status of the question seems to be settled.
To illustrate: Suppose that in ward or
township there are two hundred persons
entitled under the law to be heard; there
are 12O opposed to the location of a saloon
by anybody-that would defeat the appl-
cant. But suppose there were fifty of this
120 who were willing for the location of the
saloon if the applicant was in their opin-
to sign the remonstrance. That fifty, to-
gether with the other eighty of the 200 hav
ing such privilege, would settle the matter
and locate the saloon. Thus ii is seen that
the Supreme Court decision has settled the
status of the whole matter. In the future
the per cent. of privileged demonstrators
who stand out on the question of fitness of
applicants will neither sign remonstrances
nor authorize their agents TO do so, because
they will not put themselves in an attitude
to be counted against fit person applying
for license There might be those against
whom they would like to demonstrate, but,
not desiring to be counted against int per-
sons. they will not sign any remonstrance.
Looking at the matter from this view
point. il must be plain that the decision of
the court the basis that remon-
strances TO the location of saloons were
predlcated, not on fitness of persons apply
ing, but in recognition of majorities in their
opposition to the location of saloons in
their neighborhoods and wards. In any
event the decision is notice to all that the
signing of such remonstrances. by principal
or agents. is effective in defeating license
and location of all applicants. and so no.
body is misrepresented.
With that matter well settled IL Is too
late In the march of wider privilege of the
citizen to begin TO abridge II along the
lines proposed in the bill pending in the
Legislature on this subject. Whatever may
be said of this movement to do so af-
fecting parties or individuals favoring II
much higher and more important con-
sideration Is that already alluded to, viz.
of taking away from the citizen the priv
Iege OF protecting himself from something
that the courts and the markets every
where are Oecldr1nS Is damaging MIN In
person and property, in a word, is de-
preciating the values of property by it's
presence. The gentlemen in the Legisla-
ture not ignorant of these conditions
and every consideration of fair dealing with
their fellows should keep them mindful of
these things 1t may be answered that if
citizens are injured I'm property they can
appeal to the courts for damages. But the
courts have already declared that damage
ensues, and If We are to recognize the
rights of majorities to protect themselves.
why drive them in this matter to expense
and delays of courts? Why not allow it
quietly without expense; completely and
without denial; speedily, and without delay,
recognizing a broad principle in our or
ganic law? Finally, II should be said that
the passage of the bill pending will stir
such resentment as will not soon be for
gotten, and may be regretted when il is
too late. JOHN b. CONNER.
Indianapolis, Jan. 81.