The Paducah sun. [volume] (Paducah, Ky.) 1898-1906, 1903-07-17
Judge Sanders Discusses the
1890 Closing Law,
He Will No Doubt Dismiss the War.
rants and Declare IL
Invalid.
MAKES PRELIMINARY REMARKS

|
this morning in police court. He did
not render n formal decision nor pass
on the warrants, but it was evident
from what he said that he would dis.
miss the warrants. Marshal~Crow
stated after court that he was conf
dent the court will dismiss them, and
il is more than probable all the sa-
looms will be open tonight as usual
until midnight or all night il they
prefer
The cases docketed were against W.
G. Gray and Charles Graham, who
kept open the first night the ordinance
was ordered enforced. Attorneys I.
f. Moss and Campbell Flournoy rep
resented the defense and Prosecuting
Attorney Jesse Gilbert the proseou.
ton. the defense, when the charges
were read, Immediately entered
q demurrer to the warrants. claiming
that there was no such ordinance in
existence as alleged to have been VIC.
lated in the warrants. They claim that
the court OF appeals did not pass on
salient points and that the ordinance
had never been spread on the minutes
Of the municipal boards a. required
by law and never been published as
required by law. Arguments were
made by the attorneys, and Judge San
ders then announced that he would
render his opinion Monday. what
am going TO say now" said the
court. sis simply in advance. My
formal opinion, sustained by suthori-
ties, will be gwen Monday.
He then said that the ordinance was
the worst conglomeration he ever saw
| in his life. That ne was In favor OF en-
forcing the laws at all times when
constitutional, reasonable and right,
] or when they were decided constitu-
tional by the courts. He declared he
never, however. in all his life had
seen such a mess Rs IL embraced in the
| 1890 closing ordinance.
In his final decision, he said, he
would show where the court OF ap.
peals has reversed itself on the ques-
/ tions involved twelve times in fifteen
years, which would indicate that It is
not infallible, even if it had finally
/ decided the 1920 law. lie said that
some time ago an ordinance was
passed TO keep women out OF saloons
and the court of appeals decided that
It was unconstitutional. and that wo-
men have as much right TO go into "A
saloon AS men. The 1880 closing law,
I be declared, was ten times worse IN
restricting personal rights ana liberty
than the ordinance prohibiting women
from going into saloons. He said that
the saloon business was just as legiti-
mate as any other business, in the eyes
of the law, and that the saloon men
had license from government, state,
county and city, and paid for it,
That after selling them the privilege
TO do business, the city comes along
and attempts to sbridge their rights.
IL deprives them of from an hour and
a half to six hours out of 81 they have
already paid to do business, and when
this is added up, 1t shows that they
are literally robbed Of many hours Of
business for which they have already
paid.
So far as the court Of appeals Is con-
cerned. Judge Sanders said it had not
reversed his former decision in this
ctss, and had never reversed him in
any case. IL have never been reversed
by the court of appears. declared the
court. He said that the court of sp.
peals, in this case, had reversed Chr
cult Judge Husbands because he re-
| fused 20 admit an answer of the sa-
loon men in the case when it came up
/ in circuit court. The court of appeals
said this answer should have been
a limited II it had been ADMITTED,
the attorneys for the saloons say the
ordinance would have been thrown out
bodily then because 1t had never been
passed in accordance with the laws,
and published and engrossed as the
law requires ordinances to be, Judge
Husbands declined to admit this, and
the court of appeals said he should
have permitted it, and reversed him.
The court of appeals, it is claimed,
did not say that the ordinance is law,
but simply said what could, or might
be, law so far rs the constitution is