The Watertown weekly leader. [volume] (Watertown, Jefferson County, Wis.) 1912-1917, 1913-09-05
DAHMS REFUSED
SECOND Time.
License matter reCOnSidered by
Council with Seven for
and five against.

| Alderman kehr asked for recOnSid.
Grafton of the vote taken on the matter
of giving William Dahms a license tc
conduct a saloon in Main street at a
meeting of the city council Tuesday
evening and after considerable discus.
sion Mr.. Dahms was refused a license
by vote of to 5. The final vote stood
Ayes-Beurhaus, Hahn, Harte, Kalina,
Kessler, Ziebell, Werner Z. Noes
Kehr, Kohn, Richards, Schmechel,
Zipfel 5. Alderman Klemann and Lu-
tovskY were absent.
When Alderman Kehr in asking for a
reconsideration OF the matter stated
that since the last meeting pressure
had been brought to bear upon him
and that threats were made to close
the town Sundays if Mr.. Dahms did not
get license and that saloonkeepers
fearing that the lid would be put on
had asked him to have the matter re
considered.
Alderman Kohn then read the follow
ing opinion of the Attorney General on
this phase of the Baker law:
To entitle person to saloon license
where the number of saloons exceeds
the ratio of one to $50 of population, he
must either
(a) Have been in the business, June
30th, 1907, and continuously ever since,
or
(b) Be licensed for place used for
such purposes June 30th, 1907, and con-
tinuously ever since.
When q 'location" used for saloon
purposes June 3Oth, 1907, has been
abandoned for such purposes, the pri-
vilege secured to it by Section 1565d is
forfeited.
Alderman Kessier stated that if the
lid were put on Watertown it would be
an injury to the city and rather than
have that come about he would vote in
favor of granting Dahms license.
Alderman Richards stated that any
threats made to the aldermen should
be ignored and that no alderman should
allow himself to be influenced by
threats. He said that he believed Mr..
Dahms man fit to be allowed to run a
saloon but would not change his vote
and added that if putting the lid on in
Watertown would hurt the city any
citizen who had the welfare of the city
at heart would not try to carry out such
a threat.
The peculiar thing about the whole
affair is that Alderman Kehr who cast
the deciding vote and who had moved
for a reconsideration of the matter
voted against the motion and when
spoken to concerning his vote after the
meeting had adjourned stated that he
must have made a mistake as it was his
intention to vote for the measure as he
had called for a reconsideration OF the
vote. He Immediately telephoned
Mayor CRUDE of his mistake stating that
he had intended that his vote should be
for the measure. But the mistake has
been discovered too late as according
to Roberts Rules of Order a reconsid-
Grafton Ecannot be brought up again
after the matter has once been recon
sidered. Mr.. Dahms therefore loses
out through mistake of an alderman.
Attorney C. A. Kading appeared for
property owners in the Seventh ward
who object to putting power pole line
along several streets to furnish power
to other cities by the Watertown Gas &
Electric company.
Manager Comstock stated the position
of the company in the matter and after
the resolution of the board of public
works was read which he claimed gave
them the right, City Clerk Weber threw
some light on the subject when he said
that under the ordinance of ten years
ago. giving the company power to pnt
lines on city streets, the company either
had right to do so or they did not. 1t
was question of the validity of the or
dinance. The matter was referred.