Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1906-1908, 1908-01-10
SECOND HAND MAN
BEFORE COUNCIL
IN OPPOSITION TO ORDINANCE
RECENTLY ADOPTED.
Governing Pawn Brokers, Second
Hand and Junk DedlerS-Peti-
ton For Repeal Turned Down
Bond Ordinance For $4,000
For Streets Presented.
(From Wednesdays Daily.l

=
The first meeting of the city coun.
Gil for the year 1908 was held last
evening, the members starting the
new year by being little tardy and
with four absentees. 1t lacked ter
minutes of nine when the tenth alder
man showed up, giving Just enough
for quorum.
The only en'ivening feature of the
meeting was the discussions and action
upon a petition, signed by one hundred
of the business men of the city, asking
for repeal of the city ordinance,
adopted recently, governing second
hand dealers, pawn brokers and junk
dealers. being represented to the coun-
Gil that the measure worked hardship
to some of those affected by the terms
of the ordinance, details vi which
have been aired in the press of the
city from time to time and which are
familiar to the reading public.
Alderman Lutovusky was the first
to speak and voiced his opinion in no
unmlstakable terms aainst the petit
ton and a repeal, arguing that he
believed it ought to be tried. BE then
moved that the matter Of the petition
be Indefinitely postponed.
Mr. harrington of the Central Trad
ing company. appeared before the
council IN opposition to the ordnance.
He started his argument by declaring
that the ordinance was not legal,
| adding that the supreme court bad
decided that such local measures were
contrary to the inter state laws. lie
added that IN his belief that 1t was
illegal in another point, inasmuch as
the constitution of the state declares
that IL is impossible to give citizens Ut
other states that which is denied citi-
zens of our own commonwealth. He fur
Their argued that there is a state law
governing the provisions of the ordin-
ance, also that the supreme court had
decided that it was unconstitutional
for cities to adept such laws by ordin-
ance. He further stated that the
ordinance, or rather its provisions.
were burdensome and that 10 citizen
could remain in his business and live
up to 1t, pointing out the fact that
the authorities would be compelled te
take away license If he did not live uI
to the provisions of the same, which
would drive him out of business. He
further argued that the ordinance con.
| fiicted with the laws of the state, the
latter declaring that dealer Can buy
Uf minor with the written consent
OF the parents. while it could not be
done according to the local ordinance.
Reference was made to faulty
construction of the ordinance, claim.
ing that according TO the wording OF
certain section, it could not be ir
force after thirty days from the
time of its passage. Cdr. Harrington
then directed his remarks personally
to the city attorney, stating that that
official had told him that it woulc
not be necessary to take the RECORD
of the goods bought just at the
time, but could be done at night.
City Attorney Kadlng then spoke,
stating that he thought Mr.. Far
rington was borrowing lot of un-
necessary trouble, admitting, how
ever, that he did make the statement
last credited to him by Mr.. Earring
ton; that he did so to assure him
that he would not be arrested and fined
or have his license revoked on any
technicaIity. Mr.. Kadipg then assured
the council of the legality of the
ordinance, adding that it was drafted
section for section from An ordinance
that had gone to the supreme court of
Illinois and that the terms of the same
merely gave the authorities of the
municipality the privilege of regu-
lating certain businesses. Mr.. Kad-
ing added that the ordinance at James
vile was practically the same and
that there was no comparison to the
inter state or peddlers law, chat it
was merely local law to detect
probable thefts and that the police
department had requested the adop-
tion of such an ordinance to aid the
officers i'll ferriting out thefts.
Mayor Mulberger called attention
to the responsibility of the signers
of the petition-ali business men. He
| added that many of chem had made a
| request fer an ordinance of the kind
and stated that som. of them might
suffer as a result of thefts We're the
ordinance to be repealed. The mayor
added that he would act SIS prophet
and stated that in case of a repeal
some of the very ones whu had signed
the petition would be condemning the
police department
The motion of Alderman Lutovsky
for indefinite postponment was put to
a ycto and carried oJthouyh an affort