St. Landry clarion. (Opelousas, La.) 1890-1921, 1906-12-22
The LaRler Ordinance Falls for the Want of
Second to Motion.
THOSE WHO VOTED FOR and AGAINST.
One Alderman Says Law Must Reach Gambling
In Private Houses to be Effective
Big Revenue to Saloons.

pose the prohibition of gambling will
cards, dice, or other gaming device
in any public place, saloon, opel
square, club room, or any place tt
which the public is admitted. in the
corporate limits of the city Of Ope
lousas, was defeated almost "unani
mously" by the Board of Aldermen
when it came to a vote Tuesday
night.
Aldermen J. G. Lawler was The
father of the proposed law, and was
enthusiastic in his support of the
measure, but he was aware, it is te
be presumed, that it stood poor chance
of enactment. 1t seemed doomed
thevery night of it's introduction, a
month ago, and the Clarion predicted
then that it would not be surprised il
on final passage the measure would
not get the second necessary to put
it regularly before the body.
And it didn't get a second, and a
roll call would have been unnecessary
had Mr.. Roos been in time with his
point that the measure having failed
to get a second was not a matter to
be voted on, but died of itself. How
ever, this point was not made until
the ordinance had been voted on Sec
tica by section, the vote on every
section standing:
For the adoption Of the anti-gamb-
ling ordinance. u. G. Lawler.
Against. the adoption of the anti
gambling ordinance. Isaac Roos,
Homer Ventre and J. S. Evans.
Mr.. John w. Lewis was not pre-
sent, being at the time in New Or
leans,
There was no discussion at the
meeting on che question. As notice
of it's introduction had been given
some weeks ago, each aldermen had
thought over the matter for himself,
and came there prepared to vote.
Mr.. Roos, before he made the point
Of order that the ordinance was not
regularly before the house, announced
that he would explain his vote if the
Mayor decided that the ordinance was
subject to vote. But as the Major
sustained his point of order, Mr..
Roos gave no reason for opposing
the gambling ordinance.
It is understood, however, that the
opposition was based, not on senti-
ment in favor of gambling or its con-
tinunace, but on the impracticability
OF it's enforcement, or rather, its
uselessness.
An alderman told us that he
found no difference in gambling in a
chartered club and gambling in a
private house-on the contrary, the
club was preferable on moral stand
point, in that the children were not
made witnesses to the frailty and sin
of their parents and parents friends.
It is contended that the ordinance
would have stopped gambling in pub
lie places only, and that this was not
suppression Of the evil-gambling
would have continued just the same,
in secret instead of in public, without
violating the ordinance. The matter
of a revenue to the city was also
considered by the gentlemen of the
council, we understand. in that the
saloons derive considerable from the
gaming tables, and the license being
50 high it was thought that it would
not be just to deprive them Of this
source of revenue, unless it was
possible at the same time TO sup.
press the evil of gambling, which
is impossible to do," as one said
while there is no law which can be
invoked to prohibit gambling il
private houses