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

ness that he had made arrangements with
Hamilton TO run the hotel part of the
saloon as a resort for colored prostitutes,
white men and negroes. Parish objected
and Broatch sustained the objections.
Answer is Not Allowed.
Randall then testified he had made ar
rargements with Hamilton to run the
no el first-class, but as to what he meant
by first-cass Mr.. Broatch would not let
him answer.
When John Broomfield was called to the
stand he was asked IL he knew what the
terms Of the sale to Randall were.
YES sir, / do
What were those terms?" asked Thomas.
IT object" said Gaines. TT makes no
difference"
collection sustained" said Broatch.
1--WE offer to show by the witness that
he intends to run this place for Broom
field and Crutchheld,' said Mr.. Thomas.
Objections sustained said Broatch as
soon as Gaines could get the objection
stated.
The same procedure was the order when
George w. Tierney was called to the stand.
He testified that he knew the terms of the
proposed transfers and was present when
the agreement was made Thomas offered
to show by the witness that no agreement
had been made between the Storz brewery
except an agreement with Broomfield and
Crutchfeld The objections were sustained.
Liquor Sold 10 Minors.
Mike Brunski, who wanted license to sell
liquor at l214-l6 South Thirteenth street
was protested because 1t was alleged he
had sold liquor to minors. Mat Gregovich
and his son, John Gregovlch. IS years Of
age testified that the boy had frequently
bought beer at the saloon for boarder at
the Gregovich home contrary to the orders
of the father. Brunski denied the charge
absolutely.
Rejoinder from Parish.
OMAHA Dec. 2s.-To Editor of The Bee:
NY attention has been called to letter
which appeared in your paper of the 9th
instant, signed by the members of the eX-
ecutive committee Of the Civic Federation
relative to the agreement entered into be-
tween the Civic liberation and the saloon
keepers n year ago, concerning certain
protests which the Civic Federation had
filed and were pending at that time against
the granting of licenses to certain saloon
keepers in this city. The letter states:
There was no agreement either expressed
or implied to refrain from prosecution Of
any saloon keepers VINO "Oulu Nlbldtc INC
Sunday closing or any other provision Of
{ the Slocumb law" Prior to the confer
ence in Mr.. Mahoneys ONCE over which
the controversy arose a number of protests
had been filed by the Civic Federation.
| Each OF said protests included the Sunday
| closing feature OF the Slocumb law Some
/ of the protests contained nothing else eX-
/ cept the Sunday closing feature. For in
! stance in the case OF William A. Suther-
/ land, 1903 North Ninth street, the protest
of the Civic Federation was upon the sole
+ and only ground of Sunday closing and
/ contained this language: Said William
/ A. Sutherland sold malt, spirtuous and
vinous liquors on the first day OF the week.
| commonly called Sunday, on the l4th day
| or August 1894: the 2lst day of August
| 1904 and the 18th day OF August, 1904" II
is most ridiculous for the Civic Fedora
! ton members To now say that the Sunday
| closing feature OF the Slocumb law was moi
! discussed or was not seriously considered
| or that the agreement made was without
reference to the Sunday closing feature OF
the Slocumb law. But for that fea turt
| there would have been no conference and
no occasion for the conference. Mr.. Car
penter who signs the letter. was not ever
present at any time during the conference
Mr. David Cole, who alsO signs the letter