p. 45 | Temperance

Seventh-day Adventist Missionary Society · Oakland, California · Jan 25, 1883

Temperance.

The Trials of Saloon-keepers.

If it were not for the Legislatures and the courts, which are maintained largely for the purpose of protecting criminals, and in the interest of whisky, some vendors of the poisonous stuff might fare hard. As it is they are often put to considerable inconvenience. There are some places where liquor laws are made and enforced, but they are few, and according to the following paragraph from the Lever, Detroit is not one of them:—

"The farce of the trial of the saloon-keepers for the violation of the liquor laws, before Justice Miner's police court, continues to be enacted, with the almost invariable result of acquittal, regardless of the testimony. Two days of last week afford a sample of these disgraceful and outrageous proceedings. Nine cases were tried on Wednesday, and though policemen testified clearly to the guilt of the accused in keeping open saloons on Thanksgiving and after legal hours, the juries in four cases found the defendants not guilty, and in the other five cases disagreed, and the defendants were discharged by the Court. On Thursday eight cases were tried, for not closing saloons on legal holidays, and all of the eight escaped through a new ruling of Justice Miner, which, if used as a precedent, renders the escape of liquor sellers still more certain—if that were possible. In the first of the eight cases the officer had given the usual testimony as to the location of the saloon, the fact that he was in the saloon on Thanksgiving day, when he was asked if he saw any liquor sold or drank there on that day. The lawyer for the defense, Mr. Crofoot, objected, on the ground that such testimony was immaterial and incompetent, and contended that under complaints for "not closing saloons on a legal holiday" the only competent testimony would be such as went to show the condition of the doors, as to whether they were open or not. The question was briefly argued by the lawyer, after which Justice Miner decided to exclude the testimony. The consequence was that when Mr. Crofoot came to argue the case to the jury he contended that there was no evidence that the saloon was open for business, and that if the officer got into the saloon he was guilty of making the opening which the law prohibits, and ought to be punished instead of the saloon-keeper!! The juries accepted this view of the matter in all but two of the cases, and gave verdicts of acquittal, while in the two excepted cases they disagreed."