The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1922-07-27
Local Saloon Keepers Will
Have Bars Removed il
Used by Patrons.
CAN'T DRINK THERE
Supreme Court Holds This is
Not Absurd But Part of
Enforcement.

The lassoo of the state prohibition
enforcement officials is making cir
lie nearer and nearer the entire elm
nation of the old-time bar in saloons.
The state officers will be assisted in
jheir war on the bar by the Kenosha
police, according to the statement Of
Chief Logan.
"In cases where man is convicted
Of having sold liquor whether in
toxicating or non-intoxicating across
the bar" said Chief Logan today, "the
bar as I understand it, may be remov-
ed. We have had no such case in court
so far, but should one come up, we
expect to follow the procedure that
took place in Dane county, where the
saloon-keeper was ordered to take out
the bar"
1t is believed that this is one step
in the direction of the elimination of
the bar altogether, for the supreme
court in the decision in the case of
Hugo Abby, Dane county saloon
keeper VS.. w. Stanley Smith, state
prohibition commissioner, indicates
that it will uphold as legal efforts of
the legislature to enforce the prohibit
tion amendment by proper legislation.
Usher Out Old-Time Saloon.
"The function of this legislation"
says the supreme court, in sustaining
the prohibition commissioner, twas
to firmly but considerably usher out
the old-time saloon. No doubt one of
the purposes of the legislation was to
suppress a custom and practice OBJ
tanning in the old-time saloon. Every
one knows that the Understanding bar
shields the action of the bartender who
stands behind the bar making it en-
tirely possible for him to introduce
,intoxicants into so-called soft drinks.
"While it probably would have more
effectually prevented this practice by
requiring the removal of the bar al
together, the legislature, out of con-
sideration for the proprietor, might
we'll have thought that the prevention
of drinking at the bar would have a
decided tendency to discontinue the
preparation of drinks behind the bar.
Conceding that the legislation might
have provided for the entire elimina-
tion of the bar, we certainly cannot
say that a regulation discouraging the
use to which the bar was formerly put
is unreasonable because it does not go
so far as the Legislature might have
ggne in preventing the abuse which
the presence of the bar promotes"
The standing bar provision Of the
Mulberger and severson acts, which is
the one called into question in the
case on appeal, and which the supreme
court upheld as valid, reads in part
follows:
"No person having license for the
sale of Notwithstanding liquors to be
sold for consumption upon the prem
Uses where sold, shall maintain a
standing bar or counter of any de-
scription at which any such drinks or
liquor is consumed"
1t is thus clear that no one, within
the intent of the law, may lean up
against the bar of any saloon or other
place whether there is bar and drink
even bottle OF ginger ale or soda
pop. In appealing a case in point to
the supreme court where a saloon
keeper persisted in maintaining a
standing bar where drinks were con-
sumed, the appeal was made on the
grounds that the regulation was "ab-
surd and ridiculous"
eff the legislative purpose" says the
supreme court, was to regulate mere
ly that the posture of the patrons
while pursuing their thirst-quenching
libation, the appellants attorney rath-
er successfully convicts the legislature
of absurd and ridiculous action. How
ever, we have no idea that such was
the legislative purpose. We must bear
in mind that the function of this legis-
lation was to firmly but considerably
usher out the old-time saloon"