OCR Text |
Show 1 A RED HOT VETO i The Mayor Pays His Respects to the Councilmen and Reminds Them of the Pledges They Made Before Election, but It Does No jGood The New Liquor Ordinance Passed Over the Mayor's May-or's Veto by a Vote of 7 to 1 Browning- Alone Votes to Stand by the Mayor. z- The following is the mayor's complete com-plete message read to tho Ogden city council last evening: Gentlemen: I leturn herewith the proposed new liquor ordinance without with-out my approval for the following reasons: rea-sons: , In presenting the ordinance to your honorable body nty Attorney DeVIno says, "that his chief reason for presenting pre-senting the new ordinance Is his objection ob-jection to the mechanical features of the law as It now stands, rather than the substantive mutter therein contained, con-tained, and that he has made no effort ef-fort to change any of the material re- , strlctions imposed by tho last ordinance, ordi-nance, and that no has endeavored, ! however, to make the last ordinance ' you passed definite where it has been i indefinite in so far as he has been Instructed to the best of his ability I to clearly expresB the Intent of the council in legislating upon the matter of intoxicating liquors." I am surprised at such statement, because I find the present ordinance before you passed It was referred to the city uttorney and the law committee, commit-tee, and tho city council minutes of Mav 29, 1911, read as follows: "We, your committee on laws, together to-gether with the city attorney, to whom was referred an ordinance entitled, 'An ordlnanco relating, to the manufacture, manu-facture, sale of liquor: . . and re- enacting a chapter to be known as Chapter XXIV. Relating to Intoxicating Intoxi-cating Liquors,' New Series -No. , be substituted for said ordinance, and, that the same bo placed on Its regular order of passage (Signed) ' "J. J. BARKER, "J. II. DE VINE, "City Attorney." It seems peculiar to me that tho city attorney reported favorably on the ordinance last May and now finds it air wrong. He was requested last May to put the ordinance In proper form, tint not to change the intent a proposed. Ho even made severnl changes at that time and said it was all right, but now It Is all wrong. Why the change? Under the circumstances, the change of front by the city attorney Is remarkable, re-markable, for the reason that he makes most important changes In pointing out the changes the city attorney at-torney has mado In the proposed ordinance ordi-nance I feel sure the council will come to the conclusion that it acted under a misapprehension when It passed this proposed ordinance, because the promises prom-ises and pledges which each member of the council made when the present oidinance was passed were so solemn and sacred that I cannot believe that anv member of the city council would Intentionally violate his sacred word of honor given to the people. Of course, City Attorney DeVine made no sacred ple'dge to the people, and he Is at liberty to suggest and make corrections, cor-rections, but In submitting this proposed pro-posed ordinance he should at least have pointed out specifically to you the exact changes that hq made in order or-der that you could act intelligently. I do not belloe that one member of the Ocden city council who vQted to adopt this new proposed ordinance 'understood fully all the changes made, as I shall hereinafter point out. First That last three lines of tho state law, 1911, section 1 of chapter 10G, specifically provides that no person per-son can sell or give awav any liquor without first procuring a license. Section 7 of the same chapter provides pro-vides thai druggists shall pay not less than $200 per vear, yet this proposed ordLnnnce provides for no license for J druggists, but authorizes them to soil liquor. If the druggist sells liquor under this ordinance he Is Biibject to prosecution under the Btate law, but the state law is positive that sellers of liquor, even druggists, shall pay a license. The state law says that druggists drug-gists In voting units whore the people vole "for sale" shall pay not loss than 5200 per year nor more than $G00 per year. 1 cannot understand why this is eliminated from the proposed ordinance ordi-nance when the state law Is positive on this matter. Section 193 of the proposed law permits per-mits druggists to sell after 9 o'clock p, m. all ntaht for medicinal purposes and In addition thereto unon prescrip-tlons prescrip-tlons of a physician; also the proposed, pro-posed, ordinance establishes a distinction distinc-tion between the sale for medicinal purposes and tho sale for medicinal purposes on prescriptions from a physician This it appears to me, Is loavlng tho drug store salesman tho solo ludgc when liquor is sold for medicinal purposes True, the ordl- I nance minutely describes how a physl- clan may prescribe for medicinal pur- j poses, yet tho new ordinance author- ' tzee drug stores to sell after 9 o'clock i for medicinal purposes without a pre- ' scription, also upon the prescription ' of o regular Ilconspd physician, whllo , the present ordinance provides that drug stores can onlv soil for medicinal purposes on prescriptions from a physician. Please note tho distinction. distinc-tion. i Klirftlv tJlA nitv nnnnnll l.oo !., t ... ...... v...... .w..uv,,i uno ucuii imposed im-posed upon wben il passed this proposed pro-posed ordlnanco authorizing drug stores to sell liquor for medicinal purposes pur-poses at all hours of the day and night and then as a climax to the Joker, the proposed ordlnanco says that tho dr'jg stores may also sell for medicinal purposes if a phy- , slclan proscribes for same. I Section C02.G also treats on drug stores and says drug stores shall not sell any intoxicating liquors for consumption con-sumption In the drug store, excepting ' for medicinal purposes II Is phln ihat ' everybody who wants to tako a drink of whisky In the drug store will bo sick or at least say he Is sick. Such laws appear like a farce, and I am sur- ' prised tha,t such changes nre proposed j In an ordinance without properly noli' fying the council. I recommend that tho ordinance provide pro-vide for the licensing of druggists as pointed out In the state law and that druggists shall bo prohibited from soll-lug soll-lug liquor for modiciual or any oilier purpose, unlesB It Is on tho prescription prescrip-tion of a pin slclan, except for art and manufactures Section -190 of the' proposed ordl-imuco ordl-imuco defines a dlulng room and authorizes au-thorizes saloonkeepers to run restaurants restau-rants and own restaurants in cornice- ' Hon with saloons, providing only that Said saloon restaurants ahall seat flf- i ty people and employ ten( pors.ons as cooks, waiters, dlshwashcrs, etc. Tins Is a vicious section and seems to be In favor of a few of the big saloons and against all of the smaller oiiob. If It is right to run a big restaurant with a big saloon it is also right to run a small restaurant with a small saloon. If it is right to employ ton men to servo In a big saloon restaurant it Is right to employ one or two men to serve iu a small saloon restaurant. Tho proposed ordinance even goes so far as to say that oven the saloonkeeper saloon-keeper himself must own the restaurant restau-rant when It is conducted in connection connec-tion with a saloon. All this Is inanl-lestly inanl-lestly unfair, as it Is entirely in favor of the big man and against the little follow, and 1 must register a most emphatic protest against any such legislation leg-islation being placed upon Ogdon j Hove any such ordinance Avlll stand tho test In courts, our learned city at-f at-f torney to the contrary uotwlthstand-l uotwlthstand-l ing. But still a more serious change is made by the city attorney In striking out section 502x, Section 502x1, Section 602x2, and section 502x3, four com-pleto com-pleto sections having been eliminated The sections aro known as the search and seizure law. Under that law the chief of police Is permitted to file a complaint if there Is reasonable and probable cause to believe that liquor le sold at any place either beforo or after 9 o'clock contrary to law and ordinance, "Why this search and selz-nre selz-nre law Is stricken out I cannot even surmise. True, the proposed ordinance ordi-nance does say that if an officer discovers dis-covers any person violating the law In his presence he may arrest him, but there are few people who will violate the law In an officer's presence, and I fear If tho search and seizure law is stricken out of our ordinance that restaurants, res-taurants, grocery stores and anybody can have liquor for sale any hour of the night or day and arrests could not be made unless the officer saw the violation of tho law, or some person per-son acting as a spy complained. It Is true that the search and seizure clause is severe, but that Is why the state legislature passed It and that is why It Is made a part of the ordinance submitted to your honorablo body last June. The search and seizure law is absolutely necessary for 'a prompt and strict regulation of the liquor traffic in Ogden. Section 502x11 of tho present ordinance ordi-nance provides that no now license shall be issued excepting to those who "had a license when the last ordlnanco was passed and that no new license should be Issued until Ogdon had one saloon for each one thousand population popula-tion and that such reduction of saloons sa-loons shall tako place, first, by the saloonkeeper voluntarily surrendering his license by going out of business; second, by forfeiting license on account ac-count of the saloon violating the city ordlnanco or statj law. But Mr. Do Vino inserts in the new ordinance tho words, "successors or 'assigns," thus providing that a saloonkeeper who wishes to quit business can sell or assign as-sign his rights to the license. If those two words are left In the ordinance ordi-nance there wll bo no saloon quit voluntarily vol-untarily because liio license rights can bo sold to others, and I also fear that no license will be forfeited or cancelled on account of saloons violating vio-lating the law for tho reason that as soon as a saloonkeeper Is arrested for the violation of any law and if he knows himself to ho guilty, or thinks ho will probably be found guilty, ho can promptly arrango for an assignment assign-ment of his license and date H tno day before the arrest occurred and If the parties will testify that the Balo and assignment waB made beforo the complaint was filed in court, there is no court in Utah that will punlBh the third party or seemingly an innocent man Tho word "successors or assigns" as-signs" should be stricken out. I havo caused two' persons to compare com-pare the proposed ordinance with tho ordinance as paBsed by your honorable honor-able body last June and i vili be frank and say that the clianges that aro made to make the law "definite," as stated by the city attorney in presenting present-ing to you the prornaof ordlnanco, outside of the changes mat I have ro-ferred ro-ferred to, are so few and so far between be-tween and of ao little Importance that I confess that it appears to me that the real object of tho changing of the ordinance was not to make It more definite or to more clearly express it, but to pull the teeth out of the ordinance ordi-nance and to mako It read Juat contrary con-trary to what was Intended when tho ordinance was originally passed, because be-cause outside of he sub-dividing of a lew sections and placing headings 'or captions over some sections and setting set-ting out the bond In full, which tho state law provides for and Is unnecessary, unnec-essary, I find nothing that should prevent pre-vent the city attorney from going before tho courts of justice and prosecuting pros-ecuting tho violators under tho ordinances ordi-nances of Ogden City as they aro now without anj amendments. It Is truo that an orrbr exists in Section 502x11, but In conecling that error so that the judge could renew the liquor license li-cense to the present liqonse owners It was not necessary to Insert tho words "successors or assigns,-' and n separato ordinance that would not-cost not-cost over S2.00 to be printed would suffice, whllo to print the proposed new ordinance would come near to costing $100. I should be glad to have the council pass a separate ordinance correcting the error In section 502x11, but not with the words "successors or assigns" in it, , In conclusion, gentlemen or the council, I deslro to say that the mav-or mav-or and members of the city council present at the mooting when the present pres-ent liquor law was passed gave their sacred word of honor as- men that the intent of tho llquof law as passed just beforo the liquor election should not be repealed or changed by the present pres-ent city council. The people believed the mayor and t'clty council when they gave their solemn pledge. As a result re-sult Ogden went wet by a majority of 1,G50 votes. A change of 82G from wet to dry would have made Ogden City dry. 1 am firmly convinced that tho law passed by your honorable body just before the election saved more than 826 votes to the wet campaign. cam-paign. The people trusted you, gentlemen, and wo should npt betray them now, evon if tho city attorney asks it. As already stated, he made no pledge to the people and therefore betrays no trust when ho askod you to violate your solemn pledge, but you, gentlemen of the council, aro pledged. j You gave your word of honor as mcr y that you wouid stand b your action and it Is not loo late n.ow .to keep your word. 'Gentlemen, 6u who gave the "sacred pledge of manhood, stand by your word, of- honor unless you want the finger of scorn pointed at you by the honest men and women of Ogden. There is, however, some excuse for you having .voted for this proposed ordinance at tho last meeting, as on its face the'" city attorney led you to believe that the present law will not stand the lost of the courts, that it was in conflict with itHcIf, etc., etc. Yot tho city attornoy has changed the very into.ntpf the law which wo passed pass-ed lust' Jpnc. I am sure tho council Uid not know thig .when it voted in favor of the 'same. Tho mayor is perfectly willing to join the city council and even tho clt attorney and correct any mistake or error in the present law, but the correction cor-rection of such errors must not change the intent of the prosent law, One of the many features of the present law was to separate the restaurants from the saloons, and yet one of tho amendments in tho now proposed ordinance ordi-nance Is to.Iet the big saloons run big restaurants. Again, gentlemen of tho council, 1 ask you to think twlco before you .pass this ordinance over the mayor's veto. If you do that you stand before the people of Ogden ns violators of your sacred pledge of honor. Very respectfully respect-fully submitted, WILLIAM GLASMANN, Mayor. |