Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-02-13

whether or not you were justified In IT,
an that will be necessary to vindlcate
yourselves viii be to Just SHOW that rec rec
ord and the evidence and nave II IrlhteG
md show it to your constituents ano
that certainly will vindicatc you IN
granting this motion.
Mr.. Watkins said the thing Mr.. NC;
Donald shoild have done when ne louno
these t,~o barrels Of beer was to nave
gone and had the two barrels OF beef
condemned. The law under which TINS
is lone isthe law that provides 1or uh-
reasonable quantities OF beer; anu M Mr.
town you know has been Heffronlzed lor
years, they held out there that two bar
rcls Of beer was an unreasonable quah-
tity, two barrels of beer under the. law
was an unreasonable quantity. 1 wan.
to say that even though two barrels OF
beer may be an unreasonable quantity
out in Dickinson that doesn't make ~
SO all over the State of North Dakota
because there are times in places tn MAJ
going to mention the identical place be-
cause the natural modcsty OF my dlSpo-
| sition is such that ] don't want MI.
Watkins to come calling, but there have
been times when in that place Mr.. wat
good Budweiser beer, and no Mr.. Wat-
! kins or any police officer would nave TAX
en- that beer away from that place as
long as my name was Jonn Sullivai.
under this constitution, thank COD, ana
that is one they haven't gotten around
to take out of the constitution. Mr.. NC
Donald did the right thing. a. niue
matter down here with two barrels OF
| beer and the GOWN the barn. Why;
Mr.. Mcdonald should have gone out and
put his name in the paper. 1t should
have been put in in great headlines that
A., A1INnrnIJ Tho nffirinnf nnlrp Of -
ticer of Bismarck. North Dakota. dis
covered two barrels Of beer and a COW
| and had them all condemned. Why. may
| it pleacc the Commission, such conduct
to. There must be judgment. There must
be some judgment, and Mr.. Mcdonald
did nothing but enforce the law, If 1t
| was an unreasonable quantity. by tell
ing the man that owned the COW to axe
out the two barrels of beer, too n IN
fees and all of the expense to have these
two barrels of beer destroyed, Mr.. Nc
Donald told the man to take them out;
and you were saved the expense. AND
saved, to raise Mr.. McDonald's salary
to that extent, inasmuch as you have
been saved that.
All these things are based upon one
idea, and that is the idea upon the part
of Mr.. Watkins that to drink liquor is
a crime. Now what is this prohibition
law that he claims was violated down
there? There must be knowledge on the
part of Mr.. Mcdonald that one of these
three things was lone in this: /. Either
that Intoxicating liquors were kept there
for sale contrary to law-Mr. Mcdonald
must have known that, and not only had
knowledge of that, but Of the witnesses
by whom it could be proven that intoxi-
eating liquors were kept there for sale
contrary to law. There is not n word
Of evidence to that effect in this case,
that any such knowledge or information
came TO Mr.. Mcdonald. 2, That people
were permitted to resort there for that
purpose and that they did resort there
for the purpose of drinking Intoxicating
liquors contrary to law. There is, moth
ing in this case to that effect. These
ton that they testified to in court, as
Mr.. Watkins testified, they don't know
that any of this information had come
to Mr.. Mcdonald. The only thing in the
testimony that Mr.. Watkins wants the
Chief discharged on. is that he himself
one time took a drink in the store. And
the laws of this state, the state law,
does not prescribe any place where you
are permitted to give away liquor. but
the thing that is prohibited is giving 1t
away as a business. to evadc the law by
giving 1t away but to give a man a drink
is not against the law yet. But ! expect
some of these days they will get that in.
and then the rest Of us will have high
''tcISc SiI1tIlS. US SOtu iS lIty scl II
fixed so that the prohibitionists who
drink can't drink. then we will have sa-
looms. But there is no testimony here
that he did anything even though we
c%oncede for the sake of argument that
There is no testimony Of his ever paying
for it-eXcepting the boy testifying that
he gave him this red stuff in a glass
which turned out to be cherry phosphate.
| There Is no faStjmnnV that ha oVoYs p0i III
for it, so it would not be a sale. And,
by the way. while we are on the sub
Get. there really ought to be something
besides smell to base this charge on.
Men have made great fortunes by being
able to taste liquor. to tell what it was
by the taste of it, and if a person can tel
liquor by only smelling of it it would be
a great saving to just change these
can smell instead of men in life who cal
taste. 1t seems to me that there should
have been some foundation. but even ad
hitting for the sake of argument that
Mr.. Mcdonald actually took a drink ir
ing in the law that would prevent it. Il
he had gone up to the States Attorney
and said, "Mr. States Attorney. ! have
been down to Mr.: BreslOw's drugstore
and I ven in there and l said. Mr.,
MISUNDERSTANDING gave him a sigl
d~ndicatinSl, ard Mr.. Ereslow handed mi
a drink ard ! drank it." There would 'bt
no crime. and Mr.. Smith would have beer
too good Il lawyer to have ever had Mr.
Hrcslow arrested. because, when he cam
into court. the court would have direct
ed a verdict for Mr.. BreslOw. Ono salt
is not maintaining a nuisance; giving {
man a drink without the intention 81
evading the law Is not a crime. so thu
drug store proposition. on which so mucl
time has been wasted Is a glimmerint
guess, pure and simple. based upon thu
inside prohibitus whereby a man believes
that because he saw some men cOmins
out of there will, packages that looked
as though they might contain whisKes
bottles. that the Chief, going in there
drank whiskey and that that was agains
the law. hi
1t might be we'll. too. about this bawd,
house proposition to just mention in pass
ing that our instructions with referenc,
should be carried into force. Mr.. Nc.
Donald. on his own %volition. would in al
probability. if he was an ordinary police
officer. find out what the men that hiret
find nothing in the record here to SHOW
that this man has been instructed to dt
anything in particular with reference tt
these houses. You as City Commission
e ersc had not IT,, decided ,dds "a as ) to .; now 70; you w94lt
a lot of thought and consideration. ant
you certainly would havc to give 1t &
lot before you could decide what was TIN
best. but 1T is not apparent that yot
made any decision with reference to thu
matter. And. gentlemen, if 1 may b.
permitted to say so. there is no obligation
upon the police officer to go ahead ani
decide for you what you want done witt
reference to them: and the only other ev,
and his horse was standing outside. HI
had a right to go there when he was
going there to perform his duties as ar
officer inc the only thing there is that
/ nnt,rC p,V.nrN 11o-A - l. H. --.- -