The Birmingham age-herald., 1912-10-14
Saloon in East Birmingham
To the Editor of The Age Herald

To the Editor of The Age -Herald
 On or about September 12, 1912 Mir. Pitts, an attorney. presented petition
 for J. w. Mcdaniel to the excise com
 missioners. requesting the transfer of
 a saloon license from the terminal sta to Thirty ninth street and Tenth ave- nue, north, East Birmingham.
 This petition contained approximate | ly 200 names. 90 per cent of whom were voters, which is majority of the votes ever cast in any election in the
 Eleventh ward, but the transfer was
 not permitted
 At the outset the excisemen stated that they anticipated protest from the industries located near the place
 where MT, McDaniel wanted to estab | fish the saloon. but would give the proposition their careful consideration. MT John l.. Lunsford was present when this petition was presented and he and I stated that we had seen near l ly all of the parties whose names were signed to the petition, and that they were very desirous that a saloon be To-. cated in East Birmingham that we were the "banner box" In Jefferson county favoring the return of the sa-. loon. by vote of 21o against prohibi-. ] ton, to 50 for prohibition, nearly four to one; that we voted for local option. believed in local self government, and I that we could not see how they could | refuse to grant transfer of the H. cense, especially when the protest came | from men who were not residents of I the Eleventh ward and only interested
 in our ward financially. and that We did not believe outsiders" should dictate
 whether or not we should have a sa- l loon.
 l In regard to the excise commissions s
 action in disallowing the saloon in the Eleventh ward, The Age Herald Of September 22 stated: ''Excisemen ad- here to rule of not allowing a saloon
 where police protection is inadequatef Now, heard nothing of police pro-
 tcction' at all, nor was anything said | about it. The main and only reason of which ever heard for disalowing 1 the transfer was it would disorganize
 and interfere with labor in this lo-i
 oality. sS Does the saloon dlsorganize labor at
 North Birmingham, Ensley, Pratt City. 1 Wylam or Bessemer? Certainly not, l any more than one would at East Bir- I imngham. and as for police protec- | tion.' 1t does seem to me that Judge Lane would give us all the protection necessary.
 l l have always been an ardent anti lprohibitionist. but I am diametrically opposed to the present law which es- tablishes the excise commission where three men appointed by the governor l have the absolute and arbitrary power of granting or disallowing saloon ii- cense or transfer of one where they see ft Is this just? Is this democratic? Now, here in East Birmingham we
 were disallowed a saloon after having
 voted wet by the large majority Of nearly four to one, and at North Bir- mingham, where the vote was PA dry to 2i3 wet. dry majority of II, sa !. 1loon was forced upon that locality. 1, How is that for justice?
 Further Mir. Pitts. the attorney. stated that the chairman of the com l mission said one saloon is inadequate | to handle the business at North Bir- mingham; that The" would grant a transfer of saloon out there; that
 there was nothing tgainst Mcdonald.