Order a high-quality 18"x24" poster print of this page. Add to Cart

Albert Lea Freeborn County Times Newspaper Archives Feb 2 1897, Page 1

Low-resolution version. To view a high quality image

Start Free Trial
Albert Lea Freeborn County Times (Newspaper) - February 2, 1897, Albert Lea, Minnesota Extra Freeborn county times vol. la it Kim Lea Minnesota to Kasday att Kii noon f Kavli a ii a 1 Sot. M Meh 15. Druggists Are not tried Justice Hopkins decides that the City has no jurisdiction Over the Case and it is dismissed. Retaliatory measures against detective Mcintire he is arrested on thirteen separate charges prominent citizens become his Bondsmen. Experience of try league with an unreliable detective Agency a their flans fail Mcintire engaged plays his part Well. Why the Caes w Ere placed in the hands of the City attorney detective produces evidence. F Mcintire is not the a a bump lie appears to be he belongs to a reliable Agency has had years of experience will not leave his Bondsmen in the lurch. The ease of the City against druggists Barlow and Tovine was brought of before Justice Hopkins Friday morning and attorney Lovely moved that the Case be dismissed on the ground that the City had no jurisdiction Over it. After hearing lengthy arguments by or. Lovely in behalf of the motion and by City attorney Edwards against the motion the Justice decided that the City had no jurisdiction Over the Case and he therefore dismissed it. Oil a. Roes against the detective. During the Day sheriff Mitchell served thirteen warrants or detective Mcintire thirteen separate complaints having been filed with Justice Stacy by various parties who claim to have been furnished liquor by the detective. Or. Mcintire waived examination and thirteen sets of Bonds of it .�?T00 each for his appearance at the May term of the District court were furnished by the following citizens to. W hansom. §400 z. K. Mallery $400 John Donahue of twin lakes �000 j. U. Larkins. $400 w. S. Jones $-00 Anson Jones. §700 b. Whittemore of Armstrong a00 and a. Ii. Squier $700. As is generally the ease a number of stories have been circulated none of which Are reliable and Many of them Are far from being True. A careful investigation of the whole matter has Light the following facts a former attempt. A for several months the anti Saloon league which consists of representatives from the various churches and societies of the City has been trying to devise some method of obtaining evidence enough to convict those who were violating the License Law. In november the league arranged with a detective Agency of Minneapolis to have a Man sent Here to investigate the matter. A detective arrived but after remaining in the City about a week and securing what Money he could from the league he left town. The league could not come to an understanding with the manager of the Agency so the matter was dropped. This failure is partially attributed to the fact that too Many people were in the but the real cause was the treachery of the detective and the league is considering the advisability of bringing suit against the Agency. Mcintire is engaged. The first of january the executive committee of the league decided to make another attempt by securing the Aid of a Well known and reliable detective Agency and to insure Complete secrecy the matter was left in the hands of two or three. As a result of this decision Frank e. Mcintire one of the proprietors of the ii ice detective Agency of Minneapolis arrived in Albert Lea the evening of january 11, and at once began operations. As stated in our last Issue he made the National House his Headquarters and claimed to have the state Agency for a Patent Burner lit assumed the role of an easy going dare Devil sort of a fellow and apparently had an insatiable desire for liquor. He always carried a bottle and there Are those who insist that he drank As High As two quarts of whisky in one Day. I hey did not see him drink it but knew that lie disposed of that amount and wanted More. Mcintire was very talkative relating wonderful stories of former adventures and it is not surprising that he soon placed himself on easy terms with j his associates. He made several trips into the country with or. Thomas ostensibly to secure agents for his patents he also made Austin a visit and returned with a new Supply of whiskey. The detective even went so far As to engage mrs. F. W. Schrader As his local agent furnishing her with several samples of his new Burner. Mcintire frequented the restaurants and soft drink establishments and a sampled their to test the intoxicating qualities of a malt us a he drank a Large Quantity of it one night and claims that lie a had about All lie could at the drug stores he procured Quot spirit us Fermenti by using a prescription from or. Clarke a Minneapolis specialist who was hoarding at the National. In his complaints he claims to have also obtained liquor without the prescriptions. Bringing matters to a crisis. Wednesday january 20, when die detective had been Here a Little Over a week he informed the executive committee of the anti Saloon league Liat he had secured sufficient evidence to warrant the arrest and conviction of half a dozen different parties. That evening at a special request chief of police Chamberlain called at the residence of Rev. Cooke and was introduced to the detective. Mcintire disclosed his plan of operation and thought it Best to wait a few Days before making the arrests As he was after certain parties whom he suspected to be running Blind pigs. County attorney consulted. % monday morning there was a consultation in the office of county attorney Morgan at which the following were present Rev. Cooke or. Cryor c. W. Ransom mayor Wilkinson chief of police Chamberlain detective Mcintire and attorney Morgan. The detective made known his charges and produced several bottles each labelled and containing liquor. The matter was Laid before the county attorney and there was some dispute As to the Best Mode of procedure. Or. Morgan asked for a Short time in which to investigate the charges look up the Law Etc stating that it was a serious matter As the penalty under the state Law is both Tine and imprisonment and that they should be absolutely certain of their Points. He thought it advisable to begin with one or two eases which he might regard As the strongest and if successful to follow these with others the matter was left with or. Morgan and he arranged for a conference w it la the detective that afternoon. City takes up the cases. A Little later it was decided to try the cases under the Eity ordinance and the county attorney was apprised of the fact. The reason Given for this change was that the penalty under the. State Law is too severe. It was also thought that if the cases were Success Ful the Eity Council might be induced to appropriate a portion of the tines to help pay for the detective s services. Besides these reasons there was another perhaps More important one if the cases were tried by the state the most that could be done was to bind Over the defendants to the grand jury which does not meet until the May term of court. But if prosecuted by the City the cases could be settled at once. At any rate it was thought advisable to place the evidence in the hands of the City attorney and this was done tuesday. In the afternoon of that Day detective Mcintire called upon City attorney Edwards and gave him a list of eight separate charges against c. F. Towne and ten against f. W. Barlow. The detective also mentioned some evidence he had against other parties but As he intended to leave on tin afternoon train and his time was therefore limited he did not give any details. The samples of liquor were left with attorney Edwards and Mcintire filed complaints against druggist Towne for Selling him liquor january 13 and 14, and against druggist Barlow for similar offences january 17 and is. The evidence seemed certain and the detective anticipated no trouble in proving the charges. That afternoon Mcintire returned to Minneapolis and attorney Edwards prepared to prosecute the cases. The result has been stated above and the Legal status is fully Given in another column. I Dierf were others implicated. Among the other parties against whom the detective claimed to have evidence were s. , Chris. Jelstrup anti Narveson amp Hoyt. His charges against the first two were on purely technical grounds and no attorney would for a moment consider the evidence sufficient to warrant a Case. Mcintire claimed however to have a sure Case against Narveson a Hoyt and it seems strange that he did not emphasize this fact when presenting the matter to the City attorney. It must have been owing to his hurried departure tuesday afternoon As his conference with attorney Edwards did not last More than an hour. The remainder of the cases were in regard to the Sale of a malt us a the detective claiming that the article sold As a pm Altumn in this City is nothing More or less than Beer. As to the merits of the cases against druggists Towne and Barlow the prevailing sentiment is that they have used the utmost care and discretion in Selling liquors. In fact two of our leading physicians assert that these druggists have been exceedingly strict and rigid in this respect. Their intentions were Good. The anti Saloon league was undoubtedly actuated by the the purest of motives and took hold of the matter in Good Faith. Evidently their object was not to persecute anyone hut simply to make an example of the cases. Had their Plaus succeeded in november and had the cases been brought before the grand jury of the december term of court Ami had indictments been made and verdicts obtained the effect on the Spring election would certainly have been in favor of no License. Failing in this the league made another attempt planning to bring the cases in the Justice court and have them settled at once. Of course they had no reason to believe that the Justice would refuse to try the cases. The detective did his part and Thi failure of the plan seems to be due. Partly to a non concentration of forces on the part of the league. A Wile Dytel tick. Many rumours Are afloat concerning the character of detective Mcintire. And tin general opinion seems to be that he will never be seen in Albert Lea again. Those who were loud in his Praise before they knew he was a detective now openly declare that Mcintire is nothing but a Drunken Sot. There Are others who have come to the conclusion that the detective was a not As drunk As he appeared to on investigation it has been found that Frank e. Mcintire is one of the proprietors of the Rice detect Ive Agency. Of Minneapolis which is regarded As one of the most reliable in the Northwest. J. C. Rice is superintendent of this Agency and for the past eleven years has had his office at 757, first Avenue s. Mcintire who was former Merly a medical student served ten years in the Pinkerton service and for several years has been interested in the Rice Agency. He comes from a Good family who reside in St. Paul and is a Nephew of Robert Mcintire the Well known methodist divine of Chicago. Detective Mcintire declares that he will return when the grand jury meets in May. To meet the charges made against Legal status decision of Justice Hopkins limits and restricts the Power of the cite. Citizens Are now thrown on state officials for Protection against illicit liquor Sellers. He court not valid u it opposed to state policy an a not in Accord with Laws ail ordinances. Cit it has no right of Appeal so lust rely on Justice Hopkins to reverse his decision the Legal argument at length Laws ordinance and decision of the supreme court show that the court had jurisdiction. To a City attorney is endorsed ii till attorn y Qun Era l. The courts decision. The action of Justice Hopkins in granting the motion of the to dismiss the ease of the City is. Barlow on the grounds of non jurisdiction is most important and far reaching in limiting and restricting the rights and privileges of the City government for if valid the decision places the City in a position where it is powerless to punish those engaged in the illicit Sale of liquor within its Bounds and leaves its inhabitants dependent on the integrity and vigilance of state officials for Protection against the outrages and flagrant lawlessness of bootleggers and Blind diggers and the situation is the More grave when it is considered that in the City a Large per cent of the offences against Law Are directly and solely due to the dispensing and use of intoxicating Liguor. But the ruling of the judge is not valid. The City courts have jurisdiction Over these cases of alleged illicit Selling of liquor and according to a valid Eity ordinance the Justice May on conviction punish these offences with Fine Oil imprisonment. Our institutions and Laws Are based on the Oue great principle of local self government and in full Harmony with this principle it has been the unbroken policy of the state government to Delegate to the voters of cities or to City councils the Power of regulating and con ruling the Sale of liquor and the apprehension and punishment of those offending against Eity ordinances pertaining to this question. And such Powers granted to cities Are limited Only by a few Broad provisions in the state Law which Are intended to in Nowise inter Fere with or limit the Powers which the state legislature itself has Dele gated to cities in special Eity Charters. It would be surprising indeed to discover that the state of Minnesota has by a general Law taken to itself the exclusive and sole Power to punish bootleggers and Blind diggers especially As this class of offenders operates almost entirely within the limits of municipal corporations. Moreover under an exclusive state jurisdiction it would he impossible to secure summary punishment of these offences for each ease would he delayed to the next meeting of the grand jury and District court which meetings occur but twice a year on the contrary under the Eity ordinances punishment follows close on arrest. But the state does not assume this exclusive authority for a careful Reading of Eity ordinances state Laws and supreme court decisions Lead us to the certain conviction that the City of Lbert Lea has full and Complete authority under its charter and by the provisions of its ordinance to exercise jurisdiction Over All eases brought by the City against those engaging in the unlawful Sale of liquor. Unfortunately the City it is thought Lias not the right of Appeal nor could the Eity in another ease take a change of venue from the court of Justice Hopkins to that of Justice Stacy in the Hope that the latter would Rule in favor of the Eity and were the City to bring a ease before Justice Stacy the defense would undoubtedly Avail itself of its right to a change of venue and so remove the Case to Justice Hopkins in the confident anticipation that he would not reverse his own ruling. Unless the City rests till the retirement of Justice Hopkins from office the Only Hope for regaining its lost Power Over these eases is that upon mature deliberation and in another ease. Justice Hopkins in whose Honor and integrity we have the fullest Confidence May determine to reverse his of n decision. It is fart Lerest from us to wish for the needless prosecution of or. Barlow or or. Towne. Or indeed any other citizen or person hut the rights of the City of Albert Lea Are Paramount in importance to the convenience of any individual and we confidently Trust that at the first Opportunity a decision May he rendered that shall restore to the citizens of Albert Lea their undoubted Power to control and punish violations of its ordinances forbidding the illicit Sale of liquor. The Legal status. The Legal proposition involved in the ease is As follows has a City Justice of the City of Albert Lea jurisdiction to try and determine a prosecution for Selling or disposing of liquor without a License within the limits of said City this proposition is to he determined upon the construction of various Laws read and considered together. The history of legislation pertinent to the Issue is As follows the City of Albert Lea was incorporated by special act of the legislature in 187$. Among the Powers granted to the Eity in the original charter was that which authorized the City Council to License regulate and restrain the Sale of and traffic in spirituous vinous fermented and malt liquors. Such a Power is exercised by ordinance. Pursuant to that provision of the original charter the Eity Council duly and properly passed ordinance number 31, in 1881, being an ordinance relating to the licensing regulating and restraining of the ale of and traffic in spirituous vinous fermented and malt liquors the first Section of which reads As follow san ordinance relating to licensing. Regulating and restraining the Sale of and traffic in spirituous vinous fermented and malt liquors. Sec. 1.�?no person shall sell vend dispose of traffic Deal in or give away any spirituous vinous fermented malt or intoxicating liquors within the limits of the City of Albert Lea Freeborn county Minnesota without first having obtained a License for that purpose and no person engaged in the business of Selling or dealing in any of the various kinds of the liquors mentioned shall Larrv on such business or sell or dispose of any such liquor at any other place than the particular House store or room described in his License nor shall he at any time permit an unusual or improper noise disturbance or breach Oto the peace nor any gaming with cards Dice or any other device whatever nor any playing of games except billiards duly licensed nor shall he open his place of business or sell or dispose of any such liquors or do any manner of business whatever in his place of business on or during sundays or on or during any general or special election Day nor after 10 30 at Nigl to nor before Tive o clock in the morning of any Day. No person within the limits of said City shall sell give away or in any manner dispose of any of the various kinds of liquor mentioned in this ordinance to any minor person nor to any person of unsound mind nor to any intoxicated person nor to any intemperate person nor to any habitual drunkard nor to any improper person nor shall he permit or allow any minor person of unsound mind intoxicated person intemperate person habitual drunkard nor any improper person to visit frequent or remain in his place of business nor to drink any such liquors therein or on or about the premises adjacent thereto and any Berson violating any of the provision s of this Section shall 1 i con-v1ction t11er Elt feb Eft re a Cut y Justice or any Justice of the peace having jurisdiction thereof be punished by a Fine of not less than <73 nor More than sum for each offence and the person so convicted May be imprisoned in the City prison or qty qty jail until such Fine is a j a not exceeding thirty Days. As to the Validity of this ordinance under the original charter no question is raised. The ordinance was adopted in May a. D. 1881. Thereafter Ami at the session of the legislature of 1887, certain Bills were passed regulating the Sale of liquors throughout the state of Minnesota. In one was contained a provision which made All the legislation of that year upon the subject applicable to All cities in the state anything in their Charters to the contrary notwithstanding. It reads As follows Law of 1887.�?see. 2029, Chap. >1, general Laws ls.87.�?whoever Sells barters gives away or otherwise disposes of any spirituous vinous fermented. Or malt liquor without first having obtained License therefor agreeably to the Laws of this state shall be deemed guilty of a Misdemeanour and shall upon conviction thereof in any court having jurisdiction of the same in punished by a Fine of not less than fifty dollars nor More than one Hundred dollars together with the costs of prosecution and by imprisonment in the county jail not less than thirty Days nor More than ninety Days. All prosecutions for the violations of any of the provisions of this Section May be tried and conducted in a summary manner before any municipal court police Justice or Justice of the peace having jurisdiction thereof in the same manner As violations of any municipal ordinance or by Law May now be tried and conducted provided that the Provis ions of this Section shall not be so con Stried As to prohibit any regularly licensed druggist from dispensing liquors in filling prescriptions made by any regular reputable and duly-1 ice used physician in the practice of his profession. The legislature afterwards and in 1889 granted to the City of Albert Lea an amended charter the source from which the City of Albert Lea at the present time derives its Powers. Among the enumerated Powers delegated to it it the Eity by this charter the first one is the Power to regulate and License ail persons vending dealing in or disposing of spirituous vinous malt or fermented liquors and to provide and enforce such restrictions or prohibitions therefor As to the Council seems proper. Among the miscellaneous provisions of this charter is the following Sec. 17.�?All ordinances by Laws rules regulations and resolutions made and established by the Council of said City shall be and remain in full Force and effect until the same shall have been altered modified or repealed. This briefly stated is the condition of the Laws in respect to the subject. This then being understood it will at once clearly appear even to laymen that having assumed the ordinance to be valid under the original charter if

Search all Albert Lea, Minnesota newspaper archives

All newspaper archives for February 2, 1897

Order a high-quality 18"x24" poster print of the page above.