The Detroit times., 1910-06-15
D. j. R. MUST NOW
PAY $3.50 A DAY
Rent Increased Because Mere Fran.
ohises Have Expired - Council
Wrangles Over Liquor Licenses.

|
Heineman and Aid. link. when the for
mer took the moor to speak on q pend
Ing question after he had been form.
lilly excused from the meeting was
one OF number Of exciting features
In Tuesday nights council meeting.
link appeared to be highly indignant
at what he considered consummate
nerve on Heinemsn's part and tried TO
have the latter declared out OF order
by the chair, but Heineman kept right
on talking. much to links disgust.
II was all over Heineman's resolu.
ton to boost the ID. u. RS rental from
$500 to $35e per day. because OF the
expiration OF franchise rights on a
portion OIL the Fort Wayne 4 Belle Isle
road.
link thought the $50 increase too
small and wanted the rental boosted
to $500. He was alone In this conten-
ton, however. and the Heineman reso
luton was carried by viva voce vote.
After Heineman had been excused
from the meeting the question was
raised that roll call was required
turned and joined In the discussion.
The alderman from the First has
certainly got his nerve to get up here
and talk on this question after he has
Leen excused" declared link His
point OF order was not sustained and
lie accepted the ruling with the re-
mark:
We'll. I'm gladp the statesman from
the First has tumbled to himself that
We need roll call on this thing"
| Another lively debate cnsued when
the committee on liquor regulation
submitted a divided report with refer
ence to applications for new licenses
and transfers. The majority report,
signed by Aid. link, Lempke and Gar
vey, recommended that licenses te
granted to Joseph p. Kaiser, William
| Burt and Adam Gucfa to conduct sa-
looms at No. 800 FOREST. rs Michigan
ave. and No. ~ Goldner.ave.. respect
fully. Aid. Ellis and HARPER In the
minority report. urged that all three
applications be denied
! Mr.. Kaiser Is a member OF the firm
| OF Kaiser & Schmidt. brewers, and
| Aid. Ellis charged that he was seeking
the license purely as a means Of spec
ulation and would dispose OF II TO the
man who offered the best proposition.
Il am informed he said. that
previous TO May this man had to-
rent sign in the window, bearing the
words, license guaranteed He had
no intention OF running the place him
! self. Now, these people Who are ASK
| ing for licenses had. plenty of oppof-
tunity to secure them before May l.
| We put no one out of business who
was justly entitled to a license. Now.
say. let's Jock the door and keep II
locked for a year. We have enough
saloons
| With reference to the application Of
Burt, Aid. Ellis declared that the lat
! ter had no intention OF continuing in
his old location at No 492 Clay-ave..
as the landlord had told him repeated
ly that he could not have the building.
To give him license for a new loca-
ton after taking one out for the Clay
| ave. address. would be clearly trans
fer. Ellis contended. which is contrary
10 the spirit OF the Warner-Cramton
law and the prosecuting attorneys
! opinion. In Gucfas case. Ellis claim
ed that the saloon for which a new
| license was sought. was put out Of
/ business by decision of Judge Con-
molly. May 4.
| BY vote of IS to IA the minority
report was turned down. The majority
report also was turned down by tie
vote. 16 to l6. four aldermen being
absent. Later on the action was re-
considered on motion OF Aid Allan
and all three applications were refer
red back to the liquor committee
The council passed the ordinance
recommended by the commissioners
OF the House of Correction, providing
! for the payment OF amounts to wives
OF prisoners out OF the latter's wages.
Police Commissioner Croul submit
ted a protest against the passage or
the poolroom ordinance. as now franz
cd, In which the closing hour is fixed
at / 80 a. m. He fears that to permit
the pool rooms 10 remain open after
the saloons have closed would serious
ly interfere with the enforcement OF
the liquor laws, because there would
be tendency to carry liquor to the
pool rooms
City Clerk Nichols reported that
| the Moore municipal ownership char
ter amendment had been returned by
the governor with his signature, and
resolution was adopted, on Aid
Harpfer's motion, asking Corporation
Counsel Hally to enlighten the coun-
Gil on several important points touch
ing the validity of the plan. The ques-
tons In substance are:
| Is the bill so drawn as to per-
NIT Of bonding the city to pay for.
the construction or purchase of
system and IL so. to what amount?
VIII the amount that the city Is
able to bond for increase annually
with the increased assessed valu-
alton?
! Is there anything In the bill to
| tell specifically what rate OF fare
may be collected IL the city runs
the lines?
What express guaranty Is there
In the bill that the rates will not
exceed eight tickets for 25 cents?
Is there clause In the measure
permitting the city to condemn
street railway property. and IL SO,
Is II legal?
Can the council amend the bill
before submitting II to the peo-
pie?
The Field bill. providing for the
municipal ownership OF tracks, was
reported out favorably by the COM
mittee on charter and city legislation.