The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-05-23
CLAIMS FOUR ORGANIZED
Patrols Limit Ordinance is Topic Of
Long Pcroration in County Seat
Paper.

Times: The East Grand
FORKS city council is busy again. At
the regular meeting of the council
held on May Z last the Patrol Limitsv
ordinance was revived in = sliahtIv
inodllied form. AT the meeting held
last FRIDAY evening this ordinance was
given us second reading without any
nan The purpose of tho or
Is to describe certain territory
"ltnin the city of East Grand Forks.
outslde OF which no license can he
Elalteo Tor the sale of Intoxicating
iluors. Inc effect of the present
OF licenses In the places FORMERLY nc7
Gupled by G. S. Reed, Frank Longtime.
russell d HeinIein, r. f.. Hatch.
Harm d Oeschger. Emil Peterson. los
11aboda, B. Banik, Albert Nero and
rat Liston. The first five places men
TONED are those located or DeMers
avenue next to the bridge, and which
nave been the five largest and among
1ne pest regulated saloons in that city'
Ire eouhcil mas stcadfastly refused to
grant any licenses to any of these
places since April %, and they have
nam no license since that time.
mere are just four aldermen who
are responsible for this condition of
aHalrs. as the recorded vote shows.
Aldermen Culliton. Manager of the
East Grand Forks Brewing Co.: Ma
.nah j.: Nelson. Cashier of the First
atate Bank; George Barlow, a black
smltn. n j. W. Logan. a saloon
Keeper. just why those aldermen
have adopted so startling an innnian
tlon IN the matter of licensing saloons
on DeMerS avenue has been a matter
n1 curiosity and query. No COMPLAINT
mas been filed with the council that
any or those persons were not fit to
pau a saloon. and the situation is
not due to n lack of qualification
on the part of any of the applicants
Ior cense at those places. In fact.
."'ile OF the former proprietors of
ahcse saloons have been granted liz
censes at other places which are with
IN the new Patrol Limits" and these
same persons We're refused a license
at the place where they formerly did
business. VIII
Ihere does not appear to be anv
Just or reasonable ground for refls-
ing a license at any of those places
on account of the Patrol Limits" law,
ne purpose of that law is to give the
council authority to desgnite "Patrol
Limits within the territory in the CITY
more particularly devoted to trade
and manufacture than to residences.
ana to exclude from such limits any
territory devoted for expressly to resi-
oehces than to trade and manufac-
ture. In other words. the purpose of
me law is to prohibit the granting of
licenses in the residence portion of a
city and to confne h saloons to the
business district of the city. The
hVe places at the bridge are entirel,.
segregated from the residence norton
OF the city n there can he no oh
lection to the granting of a license at
eltiler OF those places. because Of he
proximity to residences. There ia far
more objection upon that ground to
the granting of licenses at any OF the
PAGES within the new patrol limits.
me place formerly occupied by Al
pert Nero stands by itself. on the bank
OF the Red river and is not any clos
than the saloons of John Vosler and
Jas. Jarvis. which have been granted
licenses. The residents within two
blocks of the location of Emil Peter
sons saloon have presented a petition
to the City Council asking that a IL
cense be granted at that place, but
this petition has been turned down al
most without any consideration at all.
TO outsiders this condition of affairs
seems strange and they cannot under
stand it.
The whole thing is the result of a
mutual understanding between the
four aldermen mentioned. One of
them was strongly in favor of a $1,000
license fee. After his reelection last
fall. he again took up the matter of
increasing the license fee to that
amount. As a result of his canvass of
the city council. he found only two
other aldermen upon whom ne could
depend for the passage of an Ordin-
ance to increase the amount of tho
license fee. Under the charter It re-
quires o aldermen to pass an ord
nance in the first instance. and it re-
quires five to pass it ver the mayors
veto. so that 1t was necessary to en-
list the support of a fourth alderman.
There were certain reason why they
believed that two of the other three
could not be depended upon, and there
was only n alderman to be consid-
cred. He was opposed to any increase
Of the former license fee. as he