The Telegraph-courier. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1888-1946, 1925-07-02


be recommended. The discussion also
conferred about the fact that the law
authorizing the council to issue per-
nlits for Class A places gave them the
power to use discretion in allowing
or granting such permits.
Might Be Running Now.
The reporter also mentioned the
fact that he had heard that these
three places were now operating with
out permits as soft drink parlors.
Chief Logan said that might be
true. He declared that the limited
number of men on the police force
made it impossible to post man day
in and day out at each of these places
to see whether or not the place was
operating as a soft drink parlor.
Moreover, he declared that if evidence
to that effect was secured, the ordi-
nance, demanding that these places
have permits, provided only fine
Of $40 and costs, upon conviction.
Because of this fact it was declared
that it was better to invoke the pad
lock law in such cases rather than
to attempt to enforce the ordinance
demanding permit for each soft
drink parlor.
1t was suggested that consecutive
convictions might be secured until
the violator realized that the law
meant what it said and that these
second and third offenses might bring
heavier penalties in court.
The reply to this was that there
were places in Kenosha which had
been raided six times during the past
year and that had not succeeded in
closing them. For that reason the
paddock law was claimed to be the
logical solution for the problem.
Hard to Get Evidence.
It was maintained by the police
that it was no easy matter to find out
whether or not these places were
operating as soft drink parlors. 1t
was even offered to send policeman
with the reporter to one of the places
to find whether or not the ordinance
prohibiting the sale of soft drinks
without a permit was being violated.
The reporter declined stating that
he was not interested in stirring up
court evidence but merely in the news
involved in the case.
perhaps it is hard to find out
whether these places are operating as
soft drink parlors without permits"
he thought to himself as he left the
room.
Decided to Find Out.
| With that he decided to find out
how hard it was to discover whether
the places were violating the permit
ordinance without, however, paying
any attention to whether or not they
were violating the Volstesd law or
any of the prohibition laws. An as
sociate on the news staff was found
and despatched to the three places to
purchase, if he could, any soft drink,
merely to prove that the places were
open for business.
This man went first to the former
Locante place at 165 Pearl street. The
bartender was behind the counter;
to all appearances it was a Glass A
soft drink parlor. He had no Difficult
ty buying a "near beer" There were
no questions asked.
From there he went to the former
! Mentally place at STA Fremont avenue.
Again the bartender and again all the
trimmings of a soft drink parlor."
A root beer was bought here without
any trouble.
At the former Stanley Jocius' place,
900 Jenne street, the newsgatherer
changed his choice again securing a
"white pop" and again it was without
any difficulty.
He met another customer in one Of
the places. In all three the doors
were unlocked, there was no trouble
in entering and there appeared to be
no question but what the places were
open for business.
Had Been Notified.
Here the reporter again took up the
trail. Returning to the police Office
he found that the permits from these
places had all been taken up as d.
rected by the council and that the
men had been told by the police not
to continue in business. No record
could be found as to whether or not a
check had been made to discover
whether the places had quit operation
or not.
The applications for renewal of per-
mits to the three men named are to
be taken up by the city council for
action at its next regular meeting.