Pullman herald. [volume] (Pullman, W.T. [Wash.]) 1888-1989, 1905-11-25
ABOUT ORDINANCE NO. 101.

/
Editor Herald:
"That New Ordinance, which is
spoken of by the political sub-editors
of the Tribune, is justly creating con-
siderable unfavorable comment for the
persons who are responsible for its in
PRODUCTION, passage and approval. The
hit bird always futters, and that is
why the sub-editors are trying to ex-
plain their conduct in reference to the
part they played, first, last and all the
time in the passage of the ordinance.
In the first place, it is quite gener-
ally known that the city attorney OBJ
jected to the drawing, introduction and
passage of such an ordinance for the
reasons which were given in the last
weeks Herald.
The people fully understand the
mischief that lies concealed under the
smooth, inviting surface of that in
nocent looking ordinance, of the man
who fathered it, and of the others who
have forced it upon the city over the
objections of the city attorney and
Councilmen Carpenter and Dixon. 1t
was bold, coarse attempt to throw
political sop to those who are anxious
about the welfare of their children in
this town and at the same time to
put those who violate the liquor law
on easy street.
No one can be deceived by Marshal
Holt's transparent solicitude for the
dozen college students and one or
two others. If he knew, or had
good reason to believe that students
who were minors were frequenting the
50 loon, why didn't he cause the arrest
of the saloon man and go to the age
records of the students or the college
for evidence? No, he prefers to en-
force the law through the sub-editor of
the Tribune. So law will no more
keep minors out of saloons, than the
law against drunkenness will keep a
man from getting drunk, and no one
knows that better than the sub-ed-
itor and the city marshal. The
whole responsibility of enforcing the
liquor laws of the state and city should
not be entrusted to the integrity and
vigilance of the saloon keeper; the sa-
loon keeper should have some assist
ance from the marshal and his night
watchman.
The public would like to know the
names of those minors who have quit
frequenting the saloons since the pas
sage of that ordinance, of whom the
marshal speaks in the Tribune. If
the marshal is so anxious about the
saloon laws of the city, why does he
not enforce Ordinance No. 13, which
makes it unlawful for a saloon keeper
to sell or give intoxicants to a person
who is intoxicated or to any person un-
der the influence of liquor or to any
person who has the reputation of being
drunkard? The violation of this law
is punishable by fine of not less than
SIS nor more than SIS, and costs of
suit but we hear of no arrests, but we
hear the reports of the city marshal
of the number of persons who were ar
rested for drunkenness. 1t is more
| just of course to punish the helpless,
intoxicated person than it is to prose-
cute the man who made him drunk.
The people are not all blind if the sub
editors do think 50.
Now on to the true record of that
ordinance, which is taken from the
minutes of the ordinance record.
The fact that this ordinance may be
copied from the state law, which
makes it unlawful for saloon keeper
to permit a minor to enter his saloon
for any purpose does not justify the
council to pass and the mayor to ap-
prove an ordinance to shift the respon-
sibility from the saloon keeper, who
! has arrived at the age of responsibility