The Detroit times., 1912-04-22
COMMITTEE INCLINED TO
IGNORE REQUEST FOR CUT
IN SALOON LICENSE LIST
Supreme Court Has Made Con-
trary Rulings on Warner
Cramton Law
1900 APPLICATIONS ARE IN
Hearings Begun Monday Morn
ing Behind Closed Doors
Some New Sites Rejected
1900 APPLICATIONS ARE IN

Most assuredly we will not elimi-
nate the saloons whose proprietors
went out OF business or sold their In
terests during the past year" says
Aid. George Ellis, chairman OF the
council committee on liquor regula-
tions.
such a construction OF the War
ner-Cramton law would be decidedly
wrong. In my estimation, and would
work a grievous injustice TO some ga
loonkeepers. | am not aware OF An
instance where a saloonkeeper went
out OF business during the past year
without assigning his interests or sell
ing out to some one. II saloonkeep-
or sold out during the year, the per-
son TO whom he sold would continue
In business with the original owners
license card. My understanding Is
that some OF the Anti-Saloon league
people contend We should not renew
such a license in the name or the
party who purchased the business.
But, here Is the situation We face In
about 200 such cases. The saloon
keeper who sold out has come In and
applied for q renewal OF his license
and the person to whom he has sold
his business has also applied for
new license. Thus We have duplicate
applications in many instances.
Wherever such duplicates appear, we
viii issue one license 10 the new pro-
prietor, unless the place Is black
listed by the police department. The
fact that O saloon had a bad reputa-
ton and the proprietor sold out DUR
ing the year to some one who promises
to be good, will not save that saloon
from being put out or business.
There have been two interpreta-
tions OF the Warner-Cramton law on
this subject by the supreme court.
The first decision was In effect tnat
when a saloon business was trans
ferred the council was required TO re.
new the license. The last decision In
the case Of Ploof against the township
Of Bangor would indicate that the
court took q contrary view OF the mat
ter, and that we cannot renew IL
cense where the business has been
transferred during the year. We Will
work under the first decision or the
court.
"If the warner-Cramton law would
prohibit us from renewing licenses
for new proprietors. l cannot help out
think that IL would be entirely wrong
in its application to city like De-
troit. For instance, woman or man
In very moderate circumstances would
for various reasons desire to sell out.
Now, II a license were to be refused to
the new proprietor, 1t would mean
that the person going out OF business
would lose everything he had invested
In It. very often all he possessed. We
would be destroying a persons bust
ness without reason II we applied the
law In such a case as some OF the
Anti-Saloon league people would have
us apply It"
Six petitions have been submitted
to the council committee, all worded
as follows:
We, the undersigned voters OF
the city OF Detroit, petition your
honorable body not 10 grant TO
exceed one saloon license 10 each
500 inhabitants Of the city in ac-
cordance with the provisions OF
the warner-Cramton law as con-
strued by the supreme court In
the recent case OF Ploof vs.. the
Bangor township board.
The petitions are signed by about