Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1911-06-24
HOUSTON CALLS
THE GRAND JURY
DECLARES THAT PART OF RE.
TURNED REPORT Is FALSE.
HAS been NO LICENSING
lnquisitorial Body Was Too General
In Its Statemcnts-Should Have
Named Who and Indicted.

When the recently adjourned Iulsa
County grand jury returned report
to Judge l.. NJ. Poe, OF the District
Court, that contained the statement
hat during the past year there had
been a sysem of licensing of liquor
sales In the city of Tulsa, 1t perhaps
had no idea that II would be called"
on that assertion.
The calling" came yesterday aft
ernoon during the session of the Po-
lice Court, and was interviewer In the
| imposing OF fine OF S2b on $. Gus
ter. Custer was taken In a raid on
the Moore hotel on Thursday. Yes
terday afternoon he was found guilty
OF illegally monkeying with super
/ fluous and unwarranted brands OF
| fluid to the detriment of others and
to the benefit Of the place
We'll" said Custer to the court,
Il didn't understand how conditions
are here in Tulsa. was ignorant
of what the surroundings were
After enthusiastically but sorrow
fully informing the court of the
foregoing in an impressive manner
he was given the light fine without
any attendant jail sentence.
But you must understand went
on Judge Chauncey A. Houston by
way Of winding up the sentence,
I'VE are not going to permit the
bdoze ordinance TO be violated.
/ N.{thar ora VI, ,roipor Ia Hppuea tho
| breaking of the liquor ordinances,
nor have we ever licensed the booze
| business, notwithstanding the fact
that the grand jury has said such
was the case.
Insofar as this court is concerned
there has been no licensing such as
the grand jury dealt with in It's re-
| port relative to that phase OF the
question and any such statements
or allegations, come from whomso-
ever they may, are absolutely false
and without foundation, as far as the
municipal court is concerned.
And while l am speaking for my
self in this relation, believe that the
same fact will hold true in the case
of other officials Of the city Of Tulsa
SO far as the municipal court is con-
cerned, am ready to look any man
squarely in the eyes and tell him he
is stating a falsehood when he says
there has been licensing of the IL
quor traffic by this court
That part OF the report of the
/ 4,,p. 10 ,tFll
was alluding Is as follows:
with reference to the city Off
cials Of Tulsa, the Investigations OF
the grand jury, we have found that
in the city of Tulsa there has been,
with the intention of raising reve-
nue. for the city during the past ear,
"A system Of license of liquor sales, In
the month of June, 1910, there was
collected in the Police Court over
$4,000 from forfeited bonds on
charges OF vagrancy. The grand
jury does not believe that any of the
money so collected has ever been
used by the officials for their private
use, but was used for the good Of the
city. And the officials, in the opin-
ion OF the grand jury, acted for what
they considered for the material well
fare OF the city. But the grand jury
believes, that while such practices
may have been justified in the opin-
ion Of the city officials, 1t should not
in the future be countenanced, but
that all prosecutions should be car
I ..l. 4 tVNa IA tsHh
shall make compulsory Jail sem
tence for the sale of liquor and that
a prosecution carrying fine with
out a jail sentence will not break up
the traffic"
In an interview after the court ses-
sion was over, Judge Houston showed
plainly that he was peeved by the
manner in which the grand jury
handled its discussion Of the actions
Of the city officials in the foregoing
part of its report.
There is absolutely nothing to the
grand jury's assertions in regard to
this licensing question l have never
done IT, nor will ] permit It to be
done. Moreover / will post a for
felt Of $500 and turn It over to the
first man, or set Of men, who will
prove to any reasonable person that
there has been one single instance
where in the sale of liquor has been
licensed since / have been on the
bench OF the municipal court.
"rhe way look at It, If the grand
jury found that either myself or any
other cial Of the city had been
other official Of the city had been
guilty Of violating the law, the thing
they should have done was to tell
Just exactly who the official was, OF
what he was guilty, and return an
indictment. II the jury meynt me
II should have said so; II II meant
others II should have designated what
particular ones-not tumble all to-
gether under the general term OF
city officials and let II go at that
II isn't right TO go after one person
over the shoulders OF another, and
the grand Jury should have had
enough consideration of city officials
whom It's members believed innocent,
to prompt the designation Of the ex-
act persons whom Its members be-
lieved guilty. The fact that the jury
| hellevad thin 'icpnpinu' waa dnua In