The Greeneville daily sun. (Greeneville, Tenn.) 1918-1920, 1919-10-08

started to leave, thinking the Mayor
would, in all probability, give a IA
vorable decision. But some of the
Aldermen and another stated that tn,
Mayor was trying to escape an embar
RAISING situation, and that he did moi
mean to give any favorable decision
or to allow the concessions to open
and suggested that the Board repea
the gambling act for the time being
We did not care for the closing of the
gambling devices, but we wanted the
Library to get the $500, and did not
think much of the judgment of the
Mayor in closing the shows he did
close. We understood that the Car
nival was to have the right to show
something when it came into the town,
and the concessions were least harm
full of all of them.
As to the Repeal of the Gambling Or
dinance.
1t is true, as stated in the Mayors
letter, that the ordinance against
gambling was attempted to be repeal
ed after the Mayor had persistently
refused to allow the concessions to
open. But the Mayor knowingly
omits two things in regard to this,
and knew them at the time of the
writing of his article. a. That the
resolution repeating this ordinance
had not been entered upon the min
utes, but simply written upon a sepa-
rate sheet Of paper, and had not been
signed by the officer presiding at the
meeting. (2.) That the ordinance
would not be repealed, and that the
Recorder had been notified not to
record the resolution; that it was only
passed for this occasion, and that it
was not the intention of the Aldermen
to repeal this ordinance. The Re-
corder had notified the Mayor of
Thursday before his letter of Friday,
that he 1.-THE Recorder) had received
notice that the ordinance would not
be repealed. The Mayor studiously
conceals this fact, and tries to leave
the impression that the ordinance
against gambling was no longer in
force. 1t was not the intention of
the Aldermen to repeal this law per-
manently, but if repealed at all, to
re-enact it.
None of the Aldermen were in ia
vor of the carnival, but the circum-
stances were such that there was
nothing else to be done than to allow
it to show on the inside. We were
doing the best we could with a bad
situation. We think some of those
who have talked the loudest against
Carnivals, have been the most regular
and have not only passes
for themselves but for their relatives
when they could get them.
AS the result of the Mayors act.
the Library lost $500, the Mayor lost
his temper, accompanied by brain
storm, and sat up six sleepless nights
with this bastard child, looking after
and nursing it. We hope the like will
not occur again, and if another Car
nival wants to come, it will not drop |
n, determined to show either inside |
Or outside of the corporate limits.
All statements regarding the Carni-
,al in this article can be verified by
he records or by the testimony of
lisinterested persons.
Conclusion.
The Mayor in his article probably
elied for his law on Section 1924 of
Shannon's Code of Tennessee as au-
hority for his proposition that police
powers of a municipality extend one
nile beyond the corporate limits. The
'olice power mentioned there could
My extend to the enforcement of
State law and not municipal ordi-
Mr. Shannon, in his com
nent upon this section states that if
t was the intention of this act to
How police officers of a town to
nforce municipal ordinances that the
aw would be unconstitutional. 1t
vas so held in the case of Malone VS..
Villains, 10 Cate, 800.
1t has been held in this state re-
eatedly that the jurisdiction of a
corporation is confined to
s own limits.
Hoggatt VS.. Bigley, Humph.
(Tenn.) 239.
Gass VS.. Greeneville, A Sneed
(Tenn.) 90.
Our olicemen are elected to enforce
ordinances and cannot give
leir time to the enforcement of state
Tvs. They were not elected for this
urpOse. The town by this method
ould get nothing out of it anyway.
he policemen would he snruincr tho