The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-07-02
to the benefit of that party if such
great good has come out Of il.
NO HASTE OR "SNAP."

90 them to conform to the city ordinance
90 is absolutely ridiculous and dishonest
~ The ordinance has been in force now fo
practically three months. It's provision.
having been effective that long on the
matter of requiring the proprietors OF
!. brewery-owned saloons-thosc in whose
names the license was issued-to show
that they own tho house in which the
: saloon is situated, or that they own
O the fixtures. The idea in making the
: requirement was that there should be
s some business responsibility attached to
those applying for a liquor license: that
= is. primary responsibility not response
biljty TO be found after cropping behind
the nominal proprietors themselves,
those who apply for and obtain the ii
cense, This is not only in the interest
of good morals and public policy, but
also 1T requires the saloon keepers to
conform to ordinary business practices
and requirements. In no other form of
business is the looseness allowed that
has been prevalent here under the old
ordinances and conditions. in the wild.
eating that has been tolerated in the
past in regard TO the brewery-owned
saloons.
Last fall rcformatory ordinance
covering the saloon business and meant
to cure. among other evils, the evil of
irresponsible wild.catting saloons. was
introduced in the Council by Mr. Stew
art, but before the Council had per
|
session came on. and there was a great
deal OF talk as 10 what the Legislature
was going TO do with the liquor inter
ests, and of how 1T was going to put
the saloons cut Of business. more or
less. Accordingly, it was thought best
by the Council to postpone the perfect
ing of the reformatory ordinance until
the Legislature had either acted or had |
adjourned without action And when
the Legislature did adjourn without ac-
ton op the saloon proposition, the |
Council again took up the ordinance,
strengthening it where il needed
strengthening, making it a good work
able ordinance, and providing for bet
ter and more strict regulation, provd-
ing for Sunday closing. and for the
closing Of saloons at midnight
Among other reformatory measures in
responsibility of the saloon keepers,
financially, as above referred TO, must
be rs rccitcd. 1t was held TO be not
enough that there should be response.
bic business behind the parties estab-
lishing and maintaining a saloon, but
that there should be responsibility in
the first instance, in the nominal pro. /,
prietors and licensees themselves This !
is perfectly reasonable proposition.
There is maxim among those who un-
derstand the effects Of saloon business :
that the brewery owned saloons cause ,
more trouble, arc the scenes of more
breaches of the peace and of the law, ,
than all the other saloons put together. 9
This is not only true here, but all over ,
The United States, IT is so general a
that the brewers, in their I
1ational convention, took notice of il !
themselves. inaugurated what they '
,alled reform movement, tending to i
reform the character of the agents y
hat the breweries had established in g
hose outlets for their beer Tt was .
.reely conceded that in large number r
,t cases, as recited in the PROCEEDINGS
IF the brewers convention. the most i
degrading attachments were often &
ound, in the way of houses of assigna. d
ION or Of ill"fame, gambling dens, and h
low tone generally. 1t was the re- a
olve of the brewers that reforma- g
ory measure should be applied to wipe "
mt those degrading attachments, and f
o make the saloons free from objection +.
IN this score. But the reform has not il
'een made as contemplated. Perhaps s.
here has not vet been time The evil n
las not been cured, and tho same old "
maxim rules now as heretofore, and as
ldmitted to exist by the brewers them
elvcs, IN their convention, that the
brewery agency saloons are the worst
# all.
1t was therefore perfectly natural o
hat the Council should require pri- c.
nary responsibility in the licensees n
themselves, besides tho secondary re- @
possibility that the breweries might II
AVE for those saloons, but which sec +
ndary responsibility could not be held e
esponsible for noisy places or places Il
where disputes. wrangling, and fights d
would break out. The brewers them n
elves would disown such primary re-
possibility, because II would he impos. d
ible for the brewers 10 exercise such G
lose supervision as to attend TO the de- Z
alls of running the outlet saloons Bv il
eason Of such lack Of responsibility, Ii
" such failure of immediate and de p
allied oversight by the brewers, the a
dcatting Of saloons has become no 81
orious, and it was not only proper, but
bsolutely necessary, 10 require this pri a.
nary responsibility Of those in whose n
ianes the saloons were run. &
The rule, therefore, and the reason +,
or the rule, being perfectly evident, m