The Greeneville daily sun. (Greeneville, Tenn.) 1918-1920, 1919-10-18
The Carnival and the Mayor

fare OF the town Tor even as worthy
cause as the Public Library. The
trouble, as we see it, is that the mayor
bartered the morals of the town and
lost the $4,000. AS we stated in
our former article, the concessions
were of practically no harm, though
technically illegal. We arc of the
opinion that if these devices were i'm
moral the mayor has some of the in
fection yet in him, as he admits he
attended them on many occasions
We have seen many of the good peo-
pie of Greeneville trying to get some
lucky number by which they could
draw some article of small value. They
consider this harmless amusement.
While we hold no brief in behalf of
the gambling devices, we still believe
they should have been left open in
preference to the tent shows,
AS TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE TOWN OF GREENEVILLE
OVER OFFENCES COMMITTED
BEYOND IT'S LIMITS.
The craftsmen of that portion of
the mayors article involving the ques.
ton of the right of the town Of
Greeneville, through It's police off
GERS; to arrest person and hail him
before the Recorder for a crime COM
mitted outside its limits, has stated
that the craftsman of our article of
October 9Th was unaware of section
1924 of Shannon'G Code until "some
friend learned in the law" called his
attention to this Act. The drafts
man of this part of the mayors ar
ticle having used the words "learned
in the law" relieves us of any sus-
picion or doubt that we consulted the
mayor or his lawyer. 1t is true that
our article of October 9th was writ
ten without having recently read sec
ton 1924, and it was not before the
writer at the drafting of the article.
But what was written at that time
was true. Upon inspection of section
1924 the craftsman discovered that
the Act had a fuller meaning than
that given in the body of his article,
and hence the conclusion was added,
but both statements in the article con.
STRUNG the law were correct. We
can understand why one with not
the law before him may not under
stand its full and complete meaning
but we cannot understand why the
craftsman of the legal portion Of the
mayors article with the Act before
him could render sucil a bungling in
depreciation as he did. 1t is due to
one of two things. Either a misun-
derstanding of the law, or a miscon-
struction of it. The craftsman cor
rectly sets out section 1924 of the
Code, as follows;
"The police authority of all
incorporated towns and cities
shall extend to a distance of one
mile from the lawful corporate
limits thereof, for the suppress
sion of all disorderIy acts and
practices forbidden by the gen.
eral laws of the State
Immediately under this the drafts
man says. that this language is self
interpretative We think this is true.
But at the same time the craftsman
tries to give it a different interpre-
tation from what the Act means. Note
the conclusion Of the Act, Forbid
den by the general laws of the State. "
1t does not say, forbidden by the
ordinances of a municipal corpora
ton" This is where the craftsman
commits error.
We stated in oul Yormer article
that one who committed an offense
beyond the limits Of a corporation
could not be tried for the violation
of municipal ordinance, and we are
now more convinced of this than al
the time of writing the former article
The craftsman likewise quotes from
the case of Malone VS., Williams, citeC
by us in our former article. 1t il
rather amusing that in the quotation
from this 90-page opinion he stops il
the middle of sentence. His quo
tation is:
eve have seen that ex necessi
tate, limited police power ma!
be granted to municipalities owe
small section of country sur
rounding their boundaries fo
their protection against nu
isances, and to safeguard th'
health of the people residing il
them"
His quotation here ends. The bal
ance of the sentence is:
"But even this Is hard to jus
| tify on any principle other thar
that the municipality is in sucl