The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1905-06-07
THE COUNCIL RECONSTRUCTED
SUNDAY CLOSING RESOLUTION
Thompson Introduced Resolution
Monday Night - Bull, Dud-
ley and Sinclair Stood Pat.

sprung in the city council Monday
night by w. H. Thompson, when he
introduced a resolution calling for a
reconsideration of the resolution
which brought ABOUT the Sunday
closing in this city. Mr.. Thompson
addressed the council at length, and
was followed by other members.
Every inch of the ground on both
sides was contested, and when the
matter came to vote, the result
was: For reconsideration-La
Linbarger, Marsh, Thompson: A;
against reconsideration, Bull. Dud-
ley, Sinclair: 8.
Mr.. Thompson, in moving a recon-
sideration of the resolution adopted
on March 20, stated that the measure
had been put through the council in
a rush, and its full import had not
neen understood by all of the coun-
Gil. Now, it seemed, many of the
constituents of the present council
men were complaining against the
rigid enforcement of the state law,
which precedent warranted the coun-
Gil in allowing a little latitude in
enforcing. He characterized the eff
fects of the Sunday closing move
r'ent as iniquitous, and said 1t was
a narrow-minded policy. in conflict
with the best business interests of
the community. The councilmen,
he said, were elected to serve the
general interests of the community,
not the hobbies of any sect or class.
The remedy for the evils complained
of, he held, was in the revocation of
the licenses of the violators of the
law, which action would not work
hardship on those who were not
violating state or municipal regula-
tions, save, perhaps, in the letter.
The city needed the revenue from the
saloons, and they could not afford
to pay the present license II they
were not allowed to keep open on
Sunday. He declared that there
was hardly business man on Yaki-
ma avenue who was not opposed to
Sunday closing.
Mr.. Dudley, who introduced the
resolutions referred to on March 90,
on which date it was adopted, criti-
cised Mr.. Thompson's remarks and
the position taken by him. he diff
fered very much with him as to the
working of the law, and emphatically
denied the intimation that the Sun
day closing was railroaded through.
Mr.. Sinclair expressed his pur-
prise that Mr. Thompson's speech
was made in a manner that indi-
Gated it was intended to be believed.
He was in favor of enforcing all
Low hn and 1th Ay
man had sworn to do. He had
voted in favor OF granting licenses to
saloonkeepers where he was satisfied
that they were the right kind of men
to be entrusted with the sale of
liquor; some saloonkeepers were
obeying the law. others were violat-
ing it. He declared that he knew
of no license having been granted
with the understanding that the pro-
curer thereof might do business on
Sunday.
Mr.. Marsh did not think Mr..
Thompson warranted in his criti-
cisms of the councils action in
adopting the closing resolution, or
that it was in conformity with a mar
row-minded policy. When he voted
for the resolution, however, he did
not understand that 1t was intended
to be so sweeping or so general in
it's scope. Under the conditions
here he did not think it would be
just the right thing to close the
decent saloons on Sunday, and fur
ther, did not think the public would
uphold the closing Of bakeries, drug
stores, soda fountains. etc.
Mr.. Lane jumped onto Mr.. Thomp-
son rouhg shod on account of the
latters' reference to anti-election
pledges or understandings. He
wanted it distinctly understood that
no one had any strings on him. He
was in favor of closed town so far
as practical, but was not in favor of
doing anything that would force
Bookkeeping on the people of the
town.
Mr.. Thompsons' motion was then
placed before the council, and
adopted.