Richmond Palladium (Daily), Volume 39, Number 111, 20 March 1914 — Page 8

PAGE EIGHT

THE RICHMOND PALLADIUM AND SUN-TELEGRAM, FRIDAY, MARCH 20, 1914 l

Union

M li

ill

Rli

IKS

o

o)

US First SSfldos BeMiad 4hi Wgky TTBiipaat That S1F Ifflns (Drwdl tlhic Propositi TBaai th.e Saloon 5s ILaw-Abiding, Whf eh. ffllas FJothing to EDn With This Election.

According to Gordon it is to Decide Whether Richmond Shall Abolish Only the Saloons That Disobey Present Laws. Whether Saloons Are Obeying the Law Mas Nothing to Do with this election Since the Present Laws and Courts will Take Care of That

This

lection, According to the Wording of the Fallot, is to Decide the Question: Shall Richmond Prohibit the Sale of Intoxicating Liquors?

What Are the Charges Against the Saloon that Form the Basis of This Election? Not That It Violates Any Present Law but That It Sells Liquor. Whether the Saloon Obeys the Present Laws or Not, It Sells in Either Case the Stuff that Robs a Man of His Brains, His Physical Endurance, His Sense of Right and Wrong; that Debauches Manhood, Brings Grief to Womanhood and Burdens Childhood with a Heritage of Woe; that Imposes upon the City the Expense of Caring for the Defectives, Criminals and Poverty Found in the Saloon's Parade. This Is the Real Issue as Determined by the Wording of the Ballot, but Since the Question Has Been Raised, We Will Turn Aside for a Moment and Submil the following statement prepared by Prof. Elbert Russell:

"GIVE A ROGUE ROPE AND HE'LL HANG HIMSELF.'

We Were Just Waiting Till He Got Through His Confessions.

Acknowledges One More Conviction and Two More Cases.

This Makes Twelve Cases Against the Law-abiding Saloon Keepers and Eight Convictions.

What a Proud Record Twelve Cases and Eight Convictions Would Be for Our Law-abiding School Teachers or Public Officials.

Gordon's Howls About Perjured Detectives and Criminal Libel and Action for Damages Sound Like a Man Afraid He'll Hear Something.

DOES HE MAKE A NOISE LIKE A MAN WANTING FACTS?

HERE COME SOME FACTS. AS TO TAXES. On the assessment sheet are three questions that cover the saloon business: No. 10. Value of goods and merchandise on hand No. 26. Value of office fixtures No. 33. Value of property of saloon or eating house About a third of the saloon keepers return property under only one or two of these heads. Rut since we examined the sheets some three weeks ago, three have added to the return under No. 33, in pencil, the words: "including fixtures". Evidently they had been warned. One saloon keeper was not assessed for 1913, and two have left all three questions blank. Yet their oath is on file in the auditor's office that they were "sole owner and lessee of the business", and they swore that the assessment return was complete. Which time did they commit perjury? Do they want names published ? KEEPING THE LAW IN LETTER AND IN SPIRIT. Every saloon keeper in Richmond took oath when he received his license, that he was not the agent or employe of any person, firm, or corporation engaged in the manufacture or sale of any article intended to be sold by the applicant; that he was the bona fide sole lessee of the premises for the period of his license ; that he was the actual and sole owner of the business and that no other firm or corporation had any interest, directly or indirectly, in it; and that during the continuation of the license he would not directly or indirectly solicit, receive, or accept from any person, firm or corporation engaged in the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquors, any gift, loan of money, furniture, fixtures, or other assistance of any kind. The purpose of that law was to divorce the saloons from the brewers. There are forty-one saloon keepers in Richmond who rent the property in which the business is located. From whom do they rent? Who is directly or indirectly interested? BREWERY OWNED PROPERTY. A careful examination of the titles shows the startling fact that MANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE RENTED FOR

SALOONS ARE OWNED BY THE MINCK BREWING COMPANY and by Joe and Lew Iliff , two of its principal stockholders ! Other properties are owned by the Indianapolis Brewing Company, or its local agent, J. L. Brown. Henry Schell owns several locations. Christian Moerlein Brewing Company owns some saloon real estate on which its product is always sold. The Wiedeman Brewing Company often have their sign up before the license is granted. Is this keeping the law in spirit? BARTETNDERS WHO GOT RICH ON $10.09 A WEEK. Who are these saloon keepers who sell brewery product on brewery premises? Many of them are ex-bartenders. Mr. Gordon's figures show an average wage of $10.09 per week. How did they save enough on that wage to start as sole owners and lessees of a saloon business with expensive fixtures, and with no brewery or distillery or liquor dealer interested directly or indirectly in the business? VOTERS WOULD BE INTERESTED IN THE LEASES. None of the leases between the brewery owners and their saloon tenants is on record, since the law does not require that real estate leases that run less than three years must be rerecorded. The Proctor law requires an oath that the saloon keeper is sole lessee. In face of the suspicious facts cited above, it would help the liquor men's case to publish the leases before election to prove that the saloon keepers are keeping the law in even the letter every minute. But we have a strong premonition that the citizens of Richmond will have to vote on the 24th in ignorance of those leases. Has Mr. Gordon any authority to t-atisfy the public on these points? We would like to know especially whether the Indianapolis Brewing Company, or any of its agents, such as the United Realty and Investment Company, hold any leases on any of the rooms now used as saloons? The Richmond public is eager for "facts"; not libelous facts, but just plain truth. Are there any rooms owned by the Minck Brewing Company, or its officers which are leased to the Indianapolis Brewing Company, or its agents, such as the United Realty and Investment Company? Model saloons, like Caesar's wife, should be above suspicion; especially when they are asking a new lease of life at the hands of the citizens on the ground that they keep the law every minute in letter and in spirit. The most suspicious case, is of course, the saloon keeper who swore in the auditor's office that he was sole owner of the business and then swore to the assessor that he owned no property for saloon purposes. Now if his saloon is on property owned by the Minck Brewing Company, does it not look suspiciously like a brewery saloon, which violates the letter as well as the spirit of the law? Shall we name the man before election? WHY NO NAMES ARE GIVEN. Our contention is not with individual saloon keepers but with the business as a whole. Five years ago Mr. Gordon promised us that the law-abiding saloon keepers would take the responsibility of keeping the rest within the law. Consequently, if there are individual violations, they are all culpable for betraying Mr. Gordon's trust. We merely wish to puncture the claim of law-abiding saloons. We can name the saloon keepers, however, if they want us to.

The saloon business does not rest on the same footing as any other business. By accepting a license under the law which they themselves shaped, they agree to submit the question of the continuance of their business to a public vote. They become by this a quasi-public institution. .Their acts and character become subject to public criticism, just as a public mail's acts and record became a matter of public discussion and criticism, when he asks for re-election. In doing this the saloon keeper waived the right of a purely private citizen to keep his business affairs strictly to himself and to hold men and the press responsible for adverse criticisms. Mr. Gordon knew this and began the campaign on that basis. But when we called his bluff about the law-abiding record of the saloons, he confessed the weakness of his case by wanting evidence, not for a campaign for people's votes, but affadavits for a criminal prosecution. Mr. Gordon is a good deal like one of his clients who called up a prominent business man and told him that he had heard that the business man was telling that he was selling to minors. The business man told him he was right. The saloon keeper retorted that he ought to Ix; man enough to tell it to his face and not over the telephone. The business man at once made a date with the saloon keeper, and added, "I can prove that you have been selling to minors, and if you deny it when we meet, I'll tile affadavits with the prosecutor right away." The saloon keeper did not show up at the appointed time. He did not want facts. THEY SELL TO MINORS. Mr. Pettijohn, of the Y. M. C. A., stated in an interview Wednesday that there were many boys drinking here. We add two i-igned statements in regard to some conditions here to show where they got it. The boys want their names withheld from publication because they do not want their mothers to, know. If necessary, however, they will appear before a grand jury. They are just the kind of boys Mr. Gordon said would not go into a public saloon on Main street. They come from families as good as President Kelly's. They stated that they did not especially want to drink, but went into the saloons because the crowd was going. They named two saloons "the only places for a decent fellow to go." If Mr. Gordon wants us to name the saloons we can do so tomorrow. In the meantime, we have the names of a lot of other fellows who have bought liquor in our model saloons and were never asked whether they were of age, as long as they had the money: A SIGNED STATEMENT. In the presence of the undersigned, two young men, one nineteen and the other twenty years of age, stated that during the Fall Festival in 1913, they entered two saloons in Richmond and bought and drank beer at the bar. Another young man who is of age and who was with them, is also authority for the facts and for their statement to us. The young men stated that in addition to this time, they had drunk, perhaps thirty times in these saloons altogether. (Signed) ELBERT RUSSELL H. C. FOSTER.

3

D)