The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-06-27
SPLIT ON A ROCK.
Council Didn't Pass IisdemeanOr
Ordinance.
-
Hop Tea Clause Cause Of the
Division.
TO BE A REVISION.
Plan Was to Put Small Ohenses
in One Enactment.
This Was Blocked by Opposition
TO Hop Tea Provision.

The council met last night at an
adjourned session to adopt a number
Of ordinances, revised and compiled
from those already existing.
The first ordinance considered was
the misdemeanor ordinance, consist
ing of 112 sections and embodying the
various ordinances which have been
In effect for several years to cover
oGenses of a minor nature. Sand
wiched midway is the old mop tea or
dinance shown in section Il. As soon
as it was reached, demonstration
was made on the part of a number of
councilmen. The section identical
with the old ordinance provides that
no hop tea may be bartered. given
away or sold as d beverage in less than
one gallon lots. Councilmen Holiday
Horn. Rice Simms and NiDps raised
objections to the section Mr.. HOLT
gay objected to any restrictions upon
me sale OF hop tea at all He said.
presume you VIII be legislatng
against the sale of lemonade next. It's
a Notwithstanding beverage"
The remaining three councilfnen
wanted the quantity of the hop tea
which might be purchased, lowered
from one gallon to one pint. A mo-
ton was made to strike out the sec
tlou- IL lost on a tie vote, COunCiImen
aolllday Horn Rice, Simms and
N1pps voting aye, Councilmen Howe,
Swendson, Sinner, Hughes and Green
voting no. Councilmen Griley and Ry-
der were absent
On a motion to adopt the section as
read the same vote was cast, resulting
in the nonadoption of the section.
FINALLY on a question to adopt the
whole ordinance the same hostility as
serted itself. The councilmen who
we're opposing the hop tea section
We're informed that the ordinance was
now IN force and would continue to
remain in force. That the section had
simply to do with its place in the re-
Elsed compilation of the ordinances
w heu Councilman Nipps heard this
ne switched over and changed his vote.
IN explanation, he said. IF this does
not make any difference any way, and
me mop tea ordinance IS in force, /
am in favor OF voting for this mis-
demeanor ordinance"
But Councilmen Horn Rice, Holt
DAY and S1mnls remained obdurate.
Because of their action the ordinance
failed TO carry by the necessary ma
1ority vote of the whole council
Councilmen Holiday. Simms, Horn
and Rice voted no, COuuCilmen Green,
Howe SINNER. Hughes. SWendsOu.
and Nipps voted aye. Vote to l. 1t
requires vote of seven to carry.
The four councilmeu who refused to
vote aye defeated the revision of the
IniSdeneanor ordinance in an effort to
knock out the hon tea ordinance but
the hop tea ordinance still stands
Each section Of the ordinance must
be re-read again and adopted when it
comes for reconsideration as it will next
Friday eveLing. This viii entail the
greater part Of three hours.
The whole ordinance is simply gotten
Up so that the ordinances already exist
ing may appear in a better and more
clear form and to do away with conflict
ing sections. 1t is one Of the ordinances
which Chas. F. Spencer introduced in
his work Of compilation and revision of
the city's ordinances as instructed un-
der contract to do.
There are but few changes in the sec