The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-03-17
EDITOR CALLEh REPLIES
TO COUNCILMAN DAVIS
He Says the Letter Misquoted Him
in the Communication to
the Journal.
MAKES HIMSELF PLAIN

j. Il. Callen, editor or our Standard who
opposes Councilman Davis's ordinance for
taxing grocers and others who sell intoxi-
eating liquors and who are not now taxed,
on the ground that a proper enforcement
Of present laws would make the new ordi-
nance unnecessary. has written the Journal
m reply to a communication 10 this paper
from Councilman Davis that appeared in
yesterday mornings issue.
Mr.. Callen says:
IN reply TO Councilman Davis's article
which appeared in your issue of to-day, L
desire 10 state that Mr.. Davis tunintentlon-
ally. 1 believe) misquotes me. | did not say
In any article, signed or otherwise. that the
present city laws covered everything rela-
tive to licensing the sales OF liquors. l
quoted a higher authority. the State or
Indiana, from whence the City of Indianap-
oils derives its authority a corporation
The statutes provide general laws, and any
1ict Herewith are null and void
The State makes provision 10 regulate
all sale Of liquor by retail, and 1t also
specifics what retail sale Is and provides
q penalty for violation (see Section $780,
Homer's Revised Statutes. 1887; case of
Daniel VS.. State, l5c Indiana, and again,
State of Indiana VS.. Buskirk. 20 App, 1867
In the latter case more than quart was
sold and less than five gallons. This case
demonstrated that the old quart law was
repealed and that all sales OF less than five
gallons were retail sales. Another author
fly in point. see Sec. 2090 Homer's Revised
Statutes, which is as follows: Whosoever by
himself or agent tranSacts ANY BUSINESS
Capitals are mine) or does any act without
q license therefor, when such license = is
Required by any law of the State. shall be
fined not more than 500 nor less than s..
'Mr. Davis says that neither Mr.. Dunn.
controller. nor Mr. Kruger, superintendent
Of police. could compel any saloon keeper
In the city OF indianapolis to take out a
license IL the seller refused to do so, this
on account of the amended charter of the
city.
Have not Mr.. Dunn and Superintendent
Kruger been doing just this very thing
since the present city administration took
charge Of the citys affairs? Have they not
closed two dozen saloons for just this very
thing? II IL is a fact that they can't do
IL, how did they do it?
THE writer Is not opposed to Mr.. Davis s
ordinance. / say Godspeed to 1t. IL ii is
necessary to show our officials how to do
q thing they have been doing right along
the ordinance Should go through without
q dissenting vote. There Is an aching void
TO be filled In the city treasury and the
school fund, by all means, therefore, pass
the Davis ordinance, pass it two or three
times il necessary. But pass it once at
least
Il am not informed what club the attor-
ney who gave the legal advice on this ques-
ton belongs TO, nor do ! care. But / am
disguste1 with the manner in which favor
ftism is shown 10 Illegal liquor dealers as
against the restrictions placed on those
who endeavor to conform to the require
ments Of the law regulating retail sales.
For that reason, even though 1t may be a
duplicate, l say again make it a law"