| Show fln V Ij IHMltlMINATIIIN loll 1 t VNJtlHT s Ion 1 If The mitlon oTeirlaln liquor dIn woo d-In Oflen City that the ordinance elk against She h InuTIc on Kunlar hall lie vs I uniformly enfwwil A report ut which Ctl an i U already appeared 1 In the Democrat at I I j New may 11011111cm POMP people with I II aurpriw Hut when Ica purport I un f SSIO I 1 11 I dtretood I hot will he no wonder at IH 11 r 1 I presentation to the city council to 13 r Th Mllloner I I an taxpayers of Ogden n t I moI I I 4 i Og-den City anti In addition In the common no j i com-mon burden they have lo pay a lloMM fee of Bin hundred dollan per annum In hiel for the jrivll g of carrying 1 on tho r liquor buninoms They have ln Informed Is I i In-formed that It they engag In that 11 trade on Sunday they will W 1410 A the I tJ rated That wan In reeponew to I Ihelr 10 W Mutt lo too allowed to Mil on that I I H day A other cal ones kepr wf permitted tin I t I per-mitted lo do who kepi their front door On I v i rloeed Unfortunately for tho petition is t i ere they have no bAck doon lo their oil rlfi j premlw 00 ISM ellher rtiut up on fee V Sunday or bo teen to tloUle the or I it distance Jt 4 me Impwtane of A back cutest = I lo plAres shape liquor so I Md so I thus presented In A forcible I light It lit I I I I claimed that Nationals with much eonvn 11 lence I run A lively Irod In Ogden on I 111 I Sunday without lntrfere c from the coollf I ef f pcllee It U report 11 that this II I not 7 = An unknown custom In Halt Mke City If II to I true that liquor ishopoe 1 with aback a-back entrance are privilege place there hould In anm O cruuig In tilt law I relating to founder wiling nr they the-y license too hould be 11 for eeUblleh 1 garrote with only A fear tIn Pat ciH I t-In thy cAJinol do a Sunday iKilnoe kl 1 t I The law might be amended PO aa In eps I read 1 thAI eelllng liquor on Hunday 19 I d I I 11 A rol demenor except In pbsered 1 1 with Aback A-back door I I It Straight that the Ogden city council I found the question presented lo them I P 1 ton great In grapple with successfully i The member did not like lo permit apolI Pl I open Molailon of tho ordinance nor did pen 1 they Pro life way clear lo lop Its covert I violation Tits cloasion why they did 1 not n jf Inlt upon obedlcnr to It In every the t o I CAM was not made to apar 1 That It I I was not fair lo the petitioner who I akrd that there W no dlnrrlmlnnllon 14 or that their Ikcnn fro Ix M1110mol l No fiction was taken on little rKii el 11 I It must bo clear to every thinking mind that tile law I hould too I enforce uniformly or It left without fare I I mont then hould be no dlecrtmlnatlon either for or against certain Indltldilal or ca The city authurllle am ci I I pecte l to eiecule tile city ordinance I and It there to I any good reason for I i Lilly It ought not to be nercleed In a iFl liArtlal manner I AW a rot ordinance 2FH ahould bo enforce fairly and impose I tla4ly or thy should bo frisgoilly ro Ircu I 1421L |
