The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-07-27
Acting Mayor Says Pres
 ent Law is Enough.
OPPOSES CLUB FEATURE
Says Law Would Bankrupt
 Some Local People.
mand Such a Drastic Law, 90 Mr. Mcintyre Thinks-Ac- tion Probably Kills the EA Ordinance.

The Teague ordinance aiming al the Sunday sale of liquor. which was passeu almost intact at the last meeting or the City Council, yesterday received the veto of Acting Mayor c. P. Mcintyre. This will undoubtedly put che ordi- nance in a bad way, as It's champions in the Council will have to increase their forces con nsiderably If tey nope to run the measure over the disapproval of the Acting Mayor.
 The ordinance, it will be recalled, was adopted by a vote of to z, vote which stood the test of parliamentary wrangle lasting until l o'clock in the morning. The opponents of the ordl- nance put forth at the last meeting or the Council that they were heartily Tn favor of closing the saloons on sunday but foresaw difficulties in the way or enforcing 1t which would seriously com promise the police. Besides. they ar gued, the provisions preventing the dis pensing of drinks in private clubs would do injustice to what should be regarded as the home of person, ms castle in the eyes of the law. Nor did they believe in divorcing the saloons and restaurants in such a way as would rain the business of the latter. This, they claim, would result from the en- forcement of the Teague law.
 Of this opinio was Acting Mayor Mcintyre when the ordinance was pass ed. He made repeated eloquent efforts to prevent he passage of such law. His objections, besides those already related, were that the ordinance in parts was so 'obscurely worded" that the meaning and intentions of the au- thor were not apparent. He also holds as his message to the Councill will in dicate, that the ordinance now in the City Code regulating Sunday liquor traffic, is sufficient to rcvent this evil and would be just as effective as the 9eague remedy If earnestly enforced:
 The message of veto Is as follows:
 Monts )mery, Ala, July 26, 1905. To the Honorable City Council of Mont
 gomary
 IentleInen-I her .with return to you without my appr oval tke ordinance passed at your last regular session, en- titled An Ordinance to prohibit the selling, giving away or otherwise Gis posing of spiirtuous. vinous or mali liquors from T. o'cl1ck on Saturda. night ua.il 12 o'clock ths following Sun day night"
 The most commendable features o! this proposed ordinance have for many years been part of our City Code Section 113f prohibits the sale of liquol on Sunday and Section 901 provide. substantially the same penalty for thu viol .ttion of the ordinance against sell ing liquor on Sunoay, as does Section of this ordinance. The two sections O the City Code referred to are as fol lows:
 Section 1134. Any person in charg, of, or employed in any saloon, store shop or other place, where intoxicating liquors are kept for sale. who sells gives away or otherwise disposes O. such liquor on Sunday, shall, upon con viction, be fined not less than one no more than one hundred dollars"
 Section 901. Paragraph 129 (e.) Al retail liquor licenses issued by the city for carrying on such business from an6 after October 1st, 1894, shall be deemed ani held to be issued upon the condi tion that any such licensee who shal any violation Of the city ordinance! against selling and giving away liquors on Sunday, shall be liable to have hi! license revoked and annulled by tn, City Council. Whether an appeal b' taken or not from said conviction ant upon such conviction without refer ence to any appeal which may be taken the Recorder shall certify said convic tion to the City Council at once. Pro vided. that nothing in this ordinance contained shall be construed as reliev ing any person of said Sunday Ordi nances from any other penalties nov prescribed in such ordinances for a VI olation thereof"
 From this it will be seen that thu City Councils in the past have giver this matter much consideration, ant are reasonable. conservative and sufn cie .tly severe upon those convicted O violating them.
 In Sections 4 and of this ordinance are to be found the main points o difference between the present law ant