Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-02-13
PROCEEDINGS OF THE SPECIAL
SESSION OF THE CITY COM.
MISSlONERS.
Continued from Page Nine.)

Continued from Page Nine.)
the law q the Slate Of North Dakota.
aud that he has during said time ire
quchtcd the same and ne has omitted,
failed and neglected to, do his duty AS q
police officer Of the said city Of Bismarck
during said time in enforcing the laws
Of the state Of North Dakota against
bawdy houses.
Now, in the first place. there Is moth
ing in the statute that makes it the duty
OF the Chief OF Police to enforce any Jaw
against bawdy houses. The only duty
that he has IL as a peace oiilccr. TO Keep
tho peace, and such regulations as tiiis
city Commission may give him. 1t Is
true undoubtedly that this Commission
had resolved to close the bawdy houses
in the city Of bismarck. and assume
from the description given by MI, wat
ltins thai at one time there were such
things In this city. 1t is true that II he
was Instructed to go ana close up me
Dawdy houses ana then ialied TO 40 IL,
should take account of and for which
they could bring charges against him.
But in the absence of that there Is moth
ing in the statute that requires him to
operate on his own initiative. You can
see what Il situation would arise II 1t
were not so: The Chief Of Police IS moth.
ing more than your officer. lie Is not
Il servant Of Mr.. Smith. the states at
torncy, nor 4 servant Of Mr.. Watkins.
II that Is true you gentlemen might as
well resign and let the states attorney
or Mr. watkins run inc lily u DIS
merck. You have been elected for Il
certain purpose, and that Is to take care
of the city of Bismarck. ana II the Of
ficcrs that YOU appoint are not under
your orders, not under your directions.
but If there are under the beck and eau
of every citizen or every stranger that
comes into the city then you can readi-
ly sec that you would have no authority
question OF the red light or bawdy house
district Is Il mighty big question in ev-
cry city In this country. IT is something
that far greater men than our present
rcformers have been unable to satisfac-
folly solve, and probably will for gcner-
atfons be a mighty important question
In city municipal affairs. But unless you
find that Mr.. Mcdonald has refused to
carry out the policy adopted by this
commission, has refused to carry. out
your specific instructions. ! say, with ref
ercnce to the bawdy house incident, that
there is no crime connected with It,, and
on top Of that there has been no evidence
showing that he has resOrtcd to these
places. The only evidence. as | rcmem-
Der it. being that on occasions-one or
two-he went down there openly in
broad daylight. with his uniform on, on
his horse, and as far as this case is con-
cerned, for the purpose of preserving or
der: He had a right to go. II a Chief
OF Police is going to refuse to 20 to any
suspected place. IS going to keep him.
self a hotter than thou man and not as
SOciate with your citizens and with .he
cOnOlIlOIS pEcVtlllIlS III tUe Guy, Ip" -
you going to have any information as to
what the peace OF this city is, ana no"
are you going to enforce your ordinances
n have the officers familiar with the
conditions?
The next charge is that
Upon the information and BELIEF of
this aftiant, said a. +. Mcdonald. Chief
of Police. Of the said city of Bismarck.
city of Bismarck and during his present
term of office as chief Of police of the
said city of Bismarck, has instigated the
TALKING Of Intoxicating liquors in the said
city OF Bismarck that were unlawfully
kept, therein, and after the said intoXi-
eating liquors were 50 taken and stolen
ut the i%nstigation Of said A.: +. Melon
aid, the said 4. +. Mcdonald participant
drinking of the same"
That undoubtedly refers to the incident
Of the barn owned by Mr.: AllsbuTy, or
Which he came and found a COW and two
barrels Of beer. That evidently was the
incident Mr.. Watkins was getting at.
In the first place it is not a crime for
liyonc to have two barrels of beer. |
can have 1t in my cellar; you can have
it in your cellar. ! can have it in my
barn and you can have it in your barn.
and there is nothing in the statute to
prevent it. And the mere fact that there
were two barrels of beer in that barn
was nc evidence of any crime being COM
mitted. | do not understand that the
cNtueIlce tnut the COW WAS there anu IL
was used for barn purposes is at all i'm
portant In the case. is important to
this extent. however, as showing it was
used for barn purposes. Now he is
charged-first assuming that that beer
was there unlawfuIly-with having stoi-
en- 1t and taken it to another place and
drank It. What is the testimony upon
that? There has been some testimony
here by a gentleman who was formerly
on the police department that there. was
SoT.ie beer drank in Clooten'S livery barn,
and they brought young Clooten here for
the purpose, evidently, Of proving by him
there. You will remember his testimony
when he said the Chief came there. He
did not bring the beer there. Some
thing was said. He doesn't know what
barrel was brought there by these hack
drivers, one Of the hack drivers being
on the stand. What did the hack driv-
er, Mr.. Reese. testify to? He said H."
took a barrel Of beer upstairs in the barn
and that the beer came from a barn. He
got it-and Of course tho natural conc!u-
sion and inference was that that was the
same beer that was over in Allsbury's
barn. But he positively swore upon the
stand that 1t was not the same and iden-
tica1 place. 1t was not the same barn
and therefore not the same beer. 1t vas
necessary to connect this up for Mr..
Watkins TO bring testimony showing that
that beer was unla wful!y taken from
Allsbury's barn and taken to Clontcn's
barn and drank, and If that had been so
1t would hav been a crime. because it
is not the law that a person Is not en-
titled to rave in his possession at least
two barrels of beer. and it is not the
law that q person cannot TAX q drink
with his friends, ] don't care whether it
is in this room or where, as long as it is
"That all Of the above matters and
statements are based upon numerous at
1idavits in my possession and upon in
formation furnished me by numerous per-
sons whose testimony thereof can be
obtained"
Gentlemen of the Commission, where
are those numerous Witnesses? Where
are those % or 80 citizens of Bisma rex
that Mr.. Watkins said had complained to
him about places that smelled like sa-
looms? Why aren't they here? Why has
not Mr.. Watkins, with the power of ask
ing for any subpoena for any man that
he desires, why haven't they been
brought here to tell you these facts if
they were so? What effect have these
:afGdayits that he has filed in this case?
These afidavits with reference to Mr..
Mcdonald were taken on the END day
OF August, away last summer. Not a
word said or done by Mr.: Watkins. keep
along in the middle of January this year.
His witnesses are gone he says. This
defendant is not to blame for that situa-
ton. What was the reason for Mr..
Watkins waiting that length of time?
He said, to get additional evidence. Now
what additional evidence has he gotten?
He admits that in August he was salts
against Mr.. Mcdonald. He then had
the three afidavits from the boys. Is
there anything more in this case now
than there was then? Certainly that is