Omaha daily bee. (Omaha [Neb.]) 187?-1922, 1905-12-30

was not even a member of the committee
at the time of the conference, yet they
address the public and attempt to say what
was and what was not agreed to in that
conference. At the close of said confer
ence and at the request of the Civic Fed
Grafton Mr.. Thomas, together with the
writer, appeared before the Board of Fire
and Police Commissioners while in session
and stated to the board that conference
had been held; that he had obtained all
that he wanted; that they were satisfied;
and thereupon he dismissed the protests
which he had filed, all of which included
the Sunday closing feature. If there was
no agreement, expressed or implied"
with regard to Sunday closing, why was
it that the protests on the ground of Sun
day closing were dismissed by Mr..
Thomas? Men may differ in opinion as to
what has occurred; they may forget what
was said; but the written evidence does not
change. This written evidence Is among
the files of the Board OF Fire and Police.
They are public documents, subject to
the inspection of anyone. They are in
evidence in the cases now being tried be-
fore the board. Among the protests in
evidence and which were filed by the Civic
Federation and dismissed by the Civic
Federation are those against John Wright,
105 South Twelfth street; William Clarity,
1913 North Tenth street; John A. Tuthill,
1872 Douglas street: l.. A. Goldsmith. col
Capitol avenue, and William A. Suther-
land, 1903 North Ninth street II Is not
denied by the Civic Federation that the
purpose Of the conference was to discuss
the question Of the protests they had
filed. 1t is admitted by the Civic Fedora
ton and in evidence that the protests re-
ferred to were dismissed pursuant to the
agreement had at said conference. 1t is
/, admitted by them that they agreed to the
withdrawal Of said protests and that they
authorized and directed Mr.. Thomas to
withdraw same. No other inference can
be drawn from such admitted facts and
conduct except that the Sunday closing
grounds of the protests were discussed and
waived a the conference i'm Mr.. Mahoney's
office and the protests accordingly with
drawn.
The letter Of the Civic Federation above
referred to contains this language BE
fore filing these protests meaning the
ones now under considcra tom we met the
representatives of the brewers and in
formed them that we had determined to
try to bring about Sunday closing and
! insist upon its enforcement during the
coming year" Is It not plain TO any one
that this language contradiCts the asser-
ton that there was no agreement Eek
pressed or implied" entered into a year
ago with respect 10 Sunday closing for
| 1905? II there was no such agreement one
year ago why do they propose now to in
! sist upon the same or is their present po-
: sition as to what occurred one year ago
mere bubble on words? In other words,
| they propose now to insist upon Sunday
! closing but one year ago when their Iro
| tests We're filed upon that ground they
did not so insist. but directed their attor-
/ ney 10 withdraw such protests. The truth
! OF the matter is that there was such an
| agreement entered into a year ago with the
| Civic Federation To the effect that they
| would not insist upon Sunday closing dur
| ing the year 1905, They admit that the