The Detroit times. [volume] (Detroit, Mich.) 1903-1920, 1912-05-03
GRAN TING SALOON LICENSE
TO HIBDlER AN OUTRAGE,
DECLARES PlINY ". MARSH
Just Another Evidence of Loose
Work BY Council, Says Anti
Saloon League Man
TRIED TO HAVE LIST CUT
Says Shepherd and Kuhn Re-
fuse To Lend Names To Ac-
ton Against Council
TRIED TO HAVE LIST CUT

The councils granting OF license
for Frank b. Hibbler TO establish a
saloon in the Harrington hotel after
the supreme court had decreed that
no bar can be operate& there under
the terms or Hibbler's lease. is taken
by local members OF the Michigan An
ti-Saloon league as another evidence
that the council committee on liquor
regulation did not do its work prop
cry. The ,Anti-Saloon league folk
say the license is without force or
effect insofar as the Harrington hotel
Is concerned, but they take 1t for
granted that Hibbler will be allowed
to establish saloon somewhere else
when he gets ready
Pliny w. Marsh, attorney for the
Michigan Anti-Saloon league, declares
that the council has illegally granted
all licenses in excess OF $50, which
would be one for every 500 OF popula-
ton, according to the last census.
The time is past for us TO bring
legal proceedings against the coun-
Gil. but we attempted TO do so before
the council granted the licenses,
said Mr.. Marsh The law provides
that such action shall be begun In the
name of the attorney-general or the
state or the prosecutor for the coun-
ty. | appealed TO both prosecutor
Shepherd and Attorney-General kunn
for the use OF their name sin suit
I proposed TO bring against the couh,
ell. but both refused. Mr.. Shepherd
seemed TO be in accord with us In
the matter, but said he would not IKE
10 lend his name TO an action the re-
suit OF which was in doubt. MT. huhh
refused on the ground that prece
dent had been established by hlspre-
decessor In Office, Mr. BIRD, VINO, you
will remember, refused TO lenu MS
name to such an action whlch we
proposed to begin several years ago
At that time We attempted 10 man
damus Mr.. Bird TO give his sancuon
to the suit. We guaranteed the state
against Ill expenses and we onereu
10 fight the suit for ourselves, pu'
still he refused and the supreme court
wVuldz not grant US q witt oil man
damus.
I'VE tool the Warner Cramton law
IN mean that when a man quit pusr
ness he voluntarily surrendered ms
licanse and that 1t could be neitner
renewed TO him nor TO any otner ap-
plicant applying for the same. since
we asked Mr. Bird to begin SUIT the
supreme court has handed down a de-
cision, in the case of Ploof VS.. tne
township board of Bangor, sustainine
our contention, and | have no douDt
as 70 the outcome in our case II we
could have had 1t presented 10 the
supreme court. ~
~ do not wish TO criticize MT
Shepherd for his attitude on TINS mat
ter: we disagreed, that is all. MT
shepherd has rendered the county eA
cellent service in other respects.
"In Ave counties the same sltua
ton arose as in Detroit ana the pros,
acutins attorneys in those counties
held as we contend. The prosecutors
were Root, OF Monroe; Andrews OF
Berrien: Dovel, OF Manistee; Strom'
OF Delta; and the rule was appned'
also. in Houghton. In fact, | ant
know of a center outside OF Detroit
where the number of saloons was In
excess OF the number as prescribed
in the Warner-Cramton law. that the
principle was not applied, except IN
CONTINUED on Page Eighteen)