1910, Saloon Cases, Mayor Walters

Stevens Point Daily Journal
23 May 1910
STATEMENT FROM THE MAYOR
His Opinion Regarding Certain Phases of the Clean-up of Stevens Point.

To the Citizens of Stevens Point.--

Owing to the lateness of the closing hour Thursday night [19 May, 1910] I did not make the statement at the council meeting I had stated I would, and am glad I did not for I have changed my mind. When I entered the campaign for the mayorality I stated that I should try and right some of the bad features of this city, such as a few of our saloons that were disgracing us; that the dissolute women would have to be kept out by the proprietors of these bad saloons; the "Black List" observed; the boys kept out and the midnight closing observed. All this I told a member of the W.C.T.U.; also that I should not interfere with the present custom as regards Sunday closing, as the majority of business men did not seem to favor the same; and who says I promised more is misinformed or deliberately misstates.

After election came these trials for "revocation of license." Even if guilty, according to the popular version of the affair, these men were trapped against all the rules of fair play, as matters had been run fast and loose, more loose than otherwise.

According to the above mentioned version, two were trapped by a neighbor's son because they knew he was not addicted to the use of liquor. Two more were caught, after others had failed to bite, by reason of being told an old cripple, whom they had helped keep out of the poor house for years, was sick with cramps and wanted some brandy. Two others were caught or blamed, for both of them positively state they did not sell the boy liquor, by a boy who would pass for twenty-one anywhere, and he has since stated he got the liquor on the south side, but accused these parties because he could remember their names easier than the real culprits.

Seeing that it was going to cause all manner of trouble and hard feelings and as I proposed to personally give attention to righting matters, as sent forth above, I felt I had a right to ask the members of the W.C.T.U. to withdraw the charges and give me a free hand. Their leader sat shaking her head all the while I was talking, and if a person can use their reasoning power while in such an attitude or frame of mind, then I am badly mistaken. I offered to make matters right to suit them, other than the Sunday observance, in ninety days or I would contribute $50 to their fund to get detectives here and clean up the town in such a manner that all wrong doers would be caught and no one could feel that they were trapped and the rest let go.

I also told them of a much less expensive and less troublesome manner in which they could accomplish this than to force the trials already started but their "Legal Advisor" advised it was not a cause for revocation of license, but I respectfully refer him to the Wisconsin Statutes, section and city ordinances, chapter 1558.

However, I had decided that if the testimony would permit to let the matter go to the courts and then no one could say I had acted arbitrarily and then go on with the matter of cleaning up the town as outlined above; but this being damned if you do and a whole lot worse if you don't is too much of a good thing; I have had enough when a man, who could, or did not get within gunshot of the aldermanic chair on a vote of his immediate neighbors, sits in the audience and sneeringly comments on what I do; and another, whom I am creditably informed offered to give $1 to the fund that I offered to give fifty dollars to, goes to a popular loafing place of a certain crowd, that spends their spare time playing cards, and roasts me to a frazzle because I do not act according to his light; and another, who tried to get me to give him inside information that would have enabled him to cut in under competitors' bids to the extent of one hundred and fifty dollars on a public job, also flays me because I spoke disparagingly to the ladies of the W.C.T.U., which I did not do as they had nothing to do with the procuring of information used in these trials and no one had the right to infer that I meant them or that I did not know the party of whom I did speak was not in the room, in view of the fact that my feet had been trampled on in the haste of those getting water for her. I have started out to do what I stated I should in the start, and if anyone thinks I have not the nerve to persist to the bitter end once I make a start, I respectfully refer them to Herr Kobela, late of the Hotel Polski.

If any one thinks this is an easy matter they should have been with Mr. Hafsoos and me one day when we called on Herr K. and gave him fair warning, and with me again one night about 1 a.m. when I again read the "riot act" to him. Then a few nights later when I was called about midnight and informed there had been a fight because of a dissolute woman in the resort; and when I called Mr. Hafsoos and, with the police, made a raid. The police could not have accomplished it alone for there are seven ways to get in this resort and eleven to get out. Then if anyone thinks it a pleasure to find a poor creature in woman form, cowering in a dark place like a hunted animal and when she is led to the light to find she is a poor girl, known to have been a good girl but practically forced to marry before sixteen years of age and know as I did that she was beaten and abused by the wretch her parents forced her to marry and later deserted by him. To know she practically never had a chance to be much but what she is and then have her cry and beg for mercy like a frightened wayward girl and yet know one's feelings must be steeled if anything is to be learned and any good accomplished. Then to go to the jail with a drunken lot and have one of them threatening to kill you if you put him to work on the streets, and finally get to bed about 3 a.m., and I am sure you never would have considered it easy.
Then two days later to have two more wayward women in jail and both crying and begging for mercy and know that one of them was a good girl till the wretch she married practically ruined her and was the direct cause of her forming these habits and know that the other two has two children at home, one only a baby and yet steel your heart because you know they are past the stage of being trusted and that to get testimony against others they must be "sweated" and then go to the home of the one and as she sits with her babe in her arms and the little boys playing about the room and after her defiance is broken down and she is weeping like a child and bemoaning the fate that ever caused her to live and realize that she also had practically never had a chance for her life and has none now with her husband and realize that under the same circumstances you would have been no better and yet persist till she breaks down and tells tales of shame that would put the dives of China Town to shame and makes a sworn statement that would send certain "procurers" in this town to Waupun. I say if one can do this and not have a "lump" come in their throat, meantime, they are harder hearted than I think.

Then a few nights later to get word that Herr Kobela is up to his old tricks and start out and meet a wayward woman and another who has been to the resort after her husband, who was carousing with the woman first mentioned, and place them all in jail, the innocent one as well that she might not by chance let it be known we were out for trouble, meantime hear her sob and plead to be let out that she might go to her baby and steel one's feelings to do what seemed best for law and decency, then go and round up Kobela about midnight and then raid two other resorts before going to bed. If anyone thinks it is easy, try it. The police can't do it alone. Mr. Hafsoos cannot attend to all the real dog scares and family rows and have time to do all this unaided.

Then while most people were in church some of us were "sweating" another wayward one and a good deal the same scenes were enacted. Then the next day or so to have to go [to] the wretched home of a "posted" man and "sweat" him till he finally gives up; all this and much more is what it means to put things in this town right and if anyone thinks I am not just "stubborn" enough to go ahead, once I start, I refer them to our wood haulers.

Had each one of these licenses been revoked, and no one at the head of affairs in this city who would take personal supervision, in less than two months matters would have been at the same old stage. We have a few reckless auto drivers for whose misdeeds the others must also suffer, so among our saloon men are a few reckless ones, and in no time unless there was someone to hold them in check, the others would be obliged to meet this reckless competition to a certain extent.

I had made the above start and considerable more but have had enough and unless the members of the W.C.T.U. have the courage to admit their former leader and her imported legal advisor put them wrong and will call off these cases and give me free hand I am done with the saloon question and shall not concern myself in the least regarding the same any more than to do what little has to be done from my office and devote my energies to cleaning this town up. We have cleared the tin cans as never before and are not through. I shall rule that what is an offense to the sight is a nuisance as much as though an offense to the sense of smell and these old and useless pieces of fences, sheds, dead trees, brush and waste heaps are going to be cleaned out. A special policeman is going to do the posting and anyone not heeding the same will have their places cleared and the same charged to their taxes. We may be beaten on some deals by people who rather fight than clean up but they will have to help the lawyers to live and we will get the cleaning done anyway.

We are also going to keep the streets as clean as possible and also get the ones leading to the country macadamized unless something unforseen happens and thus have it so that if a farmer comes to town and "loads up" he won't have to have assistance to get out of town.

However, if this is not enough I am willing to give a rear[?] approach to a commission form of government in that if the people will get together and appoint anywhere from three to thirty-three of what they feel are the representative people of the city as a commission to advise me I will not make a move contrary to the majority of this commission.--F.A. Walters, mayor.

**********

Note the May 24-25 editions of the Stevens Point Daily Journal are incomplete and I cannot find the letter from “Anxious Inquirer” that the Mayor is answering in the next piece.

Stevens Point Daily Journal
26 May 1910
MAYOR EXPLAINS
Replies to Anxious Inquirer and Puts Saloon Cases Up to City Attorney and Courts.

Editor Journal.--Replying to "Anxious Inquirer" [I] will say that had he not been so anxious to get into print with his hysterical criticisms he might have take[n] time to noten [sic] the place where I stated that I had concluded that if the testimony would permit that I should pass the matter up to the courts etc. That strikes me as tolerably explicit. As to the "farcical" part of the proceedings or my part in them, if such was the case, I may haveen influenced by the information received from the best of legal advice, as soon as I found these cases were to be passed on to me, that the proceedings on the part of the plaintiff's attorney were the most farcical bit of pettifogging legal work they had ever seen.


As to the "pity and contempt" etc., it strikes me that we would have been much more to be pitied had we disregarded the legal aspect, vide Mr. Owen's article, of which we had been advised, and simply decided on the merits of sentiment. As to "insulting the ladies," it takes quite a stretch of imagination to declare I insulted the members of the W.C.T.U. and as for the other statement I stand ready to back it in the courts if any one wishes to be vindictive.

As to my not doing a "self-respecting judge credit" I plead "extenuating circumstances," for I am sure no judge was ever placed as I was. The latter would have known that he was expected to act along the lines of the legality of the proceedings and that he would not be criticised for not acting according to the sentiment of the plaintiffs. In passing let us look at this. The case up for writ of mandamus is on the strength of our overruling the plaintiff's demurrer as to letting the accused testify. The law says they shall be summoned and show cause why their license shall not be revoked. What chance have they to show this and what is the use of summoning them if they are not allowed to testify?
The "seven line paragraph" he alludes to expressed my sentiment, which happened to be the opposite to his and thus displeasing to him, and had nothing to do with my decision in passing it up to the courts. In this I chose to take the less dangerous stand as regards my own trouble in case of being on the wrong side of the legal aspect of the case.

I do not feel I have upheld the "bad" but protected myself and am sure if I am wrong the court's decision will answer just as well in satisfying the law and punishing the guilty as though coming a bit earlier. At any rate I did not see fit to lay myself liable for the sake of making it cost the defendants a few week's business, as the sentiment of the plaintiffs seemed to demand.

As to the "rambling," etc., it took a little rambling to do what was described and naturally the description would be somewhat of the same order.

As to being on "earth" I have been here with both feet firmly planted and doing work all the time, even to the extent of putting two of our worst "bads" out of business and in such a manner there is no possibility of a legal quibble embarassing [sic] the situation, at least so the defendants' attorney has advised them.

As this is positively my last appearance in print in this matter, out of pity for a long suffering public, I shall have to ask "Anxious" to come from the protecting care of his nom de plume, that I may call in person, if the above does not satisfyl. Respectfully Yours—F.A.Walters.

*************

Stevens Point Daily Journal
May 26, 1910
GIVE SECURITY FOR COSTS.
W.C.T.U. Women Forced to Give a $250 Bond in License Cases.

The W.C.T.U., through one of its individual representatives, has been compelled by the saloon interests to furnish security for costs in the revocation case. The order was secured from Judge Murat by Sicklesteel & Pfiffner, attorneys for Klish Bros. A bond of $250 was requested and the same will be filed tomorrow probably by Mrs. Carrie I. Howard, personally backed by the Union. The women are game and evidently mean business for sure in these cases, and it is understood that it is not the women alone but that they are backed by some of the leading citizens in this movement.

In this connection, it might be appropriate at this time to explain, there is nothing personal in this case so far as the W.C.T.U. is concerned. It is entirely a matter of principle and the particular principle just now is that the sale of liquor to minors and posted persons in Stevens Point must stop. There have been various prosecutions in the courts on various occasions but the proprietors came into court, paid their little fines and the sale went merrily on. It paid better to pay fines than to obey the law. There came a time when it seemed no longer good policy to put off revocation proceedings until "next time".

The claim that these cases were "underhanded snap proceedings" is wholly untrue, except in possibly one case. On the morning of [Wednesday] Feb. 2, A. H.[?] MacMillan, a posted person, took his own life while terribly drunk. In the death notice, the personal feelings of his family were thrust aside and the truth was stated plainly, stated so plainly that several saloon keepers "stopped their paper" and it was certainly apparent to all that there was to be a "hereafter." The virst violations after that in these alleged "snap cases" came on [Tuesday] Feb. 8 and the others followed after from day to day. The ladies of the W.C.T.U. have been criticised for securing an outside attorney. The ladies claim they visited several local attorneys and met with such indifference, so much cold water, such parleying with the main issue, and such a dearth of pointed advice that they were afraid to trust the cases in local hands. It may have been the result of a wrong impression but that is the reason Mr. Smith of Madison was engaged.

The ladies are free to admit that Mayor Walters interviewed them before and after election in an effort to have the cases quashed, but they were in the fight, not for political reasons, but to stop an illicit business which in their opinion, had already been tolerated too long in Stevens Point, and they failed to see why the mayor should interest himself, personally, on the negative side of an important moral problem. They declined to be cajoled into dropping the cases.

1910 Saloon Cases, Newpaper Accounts

The Gazette
18 May 1910

LICENSE NOT REVOKED
Two of the Six Cases Against Saloon Keepers Tried and Defendants Declared Not Guilty

Two of the cases against saloonkeepers of this city occupied the attention of the council for several hours last Thursday [12 May, 1910] and Friday [13 May 1910] evenings, an adjournment not being taken on the latter date until 1 o'clock Saturday morning. The prosecution on Thursday evening was against Albert and George Klish, charged with selling liquor to Hyman Fisher, a minor between the age of 13 and 14 years. The prosecution on behalf of the local W.C.T.U. was represented by Rufus B. Smith, a Madison attorney, while D.I. Sicklesteel appeared for the defense and W.F.Owen was present to look after the interests of the city. The first named attorney read the affidavits from records in justice and circuit courts, to all of which Mr. Sicklesteel interposed a general denial. Mr. Smith objected to the introduction of evidence of any kind, and read extracts from a lengthy brief which he had prepared to support his contention. Mr. Sicklesteel read court decisions supporting the defendants's side of the controversy, and asked that the demurrer made by the attorney for the prosecution be overruled. This was done on motion of Ald. Schenk by a vote of 8 to 2, those voting no being Scribner and Sparks.

Mr. Smith said he would introduce no testimony, would not cross examine witnesses or make an argument. Geo. and Albert Klish were examined separately, both denying that Fisher had been in their saloon or that he had secured liquor of any kind from them. They had plead guilty because they had been advised this was the cheapest and best way to get out of the difficulty after their arrest. To questions submitted by City. Atty. Owen, the witnesses denied making alleged admissions to Judge Webb in circuit court.


The attorneys submitted written resolutions for the consideration of the council, who went into executive session, and declared by a vote of 7 to 5 that the defendants were not guilty. Those who voted for the defendants were Abb, Altenberg, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk and Urowski; for the prosecution, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner and Sparks.

Friday evening [13 May 1910] the case against Julius Retzski, charged with selling liquor to Carl Dake, a minor, commanded the attention of the mayor, council, attorneys and many spectators, and ended in a tie vote, 6 to 6, which was decided by Mayor Walters, who voted in favor of Retzski, declaring that he was not guilty of the charges preferred and that his license should not be revoked. The vote was the same as that of the evening before, except that Altenberg left the defense and went over to the prosecution.


Chief of Police Hafsoos swore that he arrested young Dake in an intoxicated condition on the 11th of Feb., that he visited the Retzski saloon on the following day in company with Dake, and that Louis Retzski, who at that time said his name was Julius, admitted that he had sold liquor to Dake. Louis appeared in Justice Park's court, plead guilty to the charge and paid his fine.
J.W.Dake, grandfather of Carl, was called, but could not remember or state positively how old the young man is. He stated that the latter had gone west four or five weeks ago, presumably to take up a homestead.

Julius Retzski when called created a mild protest from Chief Hafsoos, who supposed that the young man who entered the plea of guilty was the only and original Julius and had never been informed to the contrary. Julius is the father of the young man who appeared in court last February, and he gave his testimony through an interpreter, John Corda [-2]. Julius said he is a saloonkeeper and farmer, his farm being in Carson, and showed that the license taken out in 1909 was in his name and paid for by him. His sons, Max and Louis, are employed as his bartenders, and for their work are given their support and spending money. He did not sell any liquor to Dake and does not know him.
Max Retzski stated that he was employed in the saloon on the 11th, but did not sell or give any liquor to Dake and did not known (sic) who he was until the day after.

Louis Retzski reiterated the above statement and also stated that he was the one who had plead guilty in justice court, paying the fine and costs, as he did no want his father to know anything about the affair. He was advised to enter a plea of guilty by his friends, who told him it would be much cheaper than to hire a lawyer and fight the case.

At the conclusion of the testimony, which was a long drawnout affair, owing to continual objections to testimony being admitted or answered by counsel on the opposite sides, especially by the attorney for the prosecution, nearly an hour was taken up in arguments by Messrs. Smith, Sicklesteel and Owen, at the conclusion of which the council and mayor, acting as jury and judge, rendered their decision as stated. D.J. Leahy has been acting as court reporter or stenographer.

Mrs. McMillan, matron at Mercy hospital, whose husband committed suicide a few months ago, was present as a witness in the event that she should be called upon, but this was not a case in which she was directly interested. A number of other ladies, members of the W.C.T.U., have also attended each meeting of the council in which any action was expected or taken. Before going into executive session Ald. Schenk remarked that he thought that women who would hire minors, boys outside of their own families, to go to saloons and secure beer or liquor of any kind, that they might secure evidence against a saloonkeeper, are as bad as the saloonkeeper, and both the boys and women should be punished. Mayor Walters stated that as Mrs. McMillan knew the character of the man she married before their marriage he did not think she was entitled to as much sympathy as she would otherwise be.

City Atty. Owen, who was present in the interest of the city, as advisor of the mayor and council, presented some legal points that he thought had been overdrawn on both sides, and consequently may have been misunderstood. When presenting some facts that seemed directly in favor of the prosecution, Mr. Smith attorney for that side, made objections, directing the reporter time and again to note his objections, and at the conclusion of Mr. Owen's remarks thanked him for the "excellent argument he had made for the defense." Mr. Owen did not fall, but said he felt as though a feather would knock him down.

The hearing in other like cases will be resumed this evening.

**********

Stevens Point Daily Journal
19 May 1910

BUT YOUR CAN'T CHANGE IT.

Members of the Common Council
Are of the Same Opinion Still
on Saloon Question.

At an adjourned meeting of the common council held Wednesday [18 May, 1910] night three of the saloon cases were temporarily disposed of. These were the cases of Strong Bros., Peck Bros. and August Kotlewski. In all three cases the council voted to acquit the defendants of the charges made against them. In the case of Strong and Kotlewski the vote of the aldermen was a tie, the mayor deciding in favor of the saloonkeepers. In the case of Peck Bros. the vote was 7 to 5 in favor of the defendants. The vote stood the same as in the first two cases.

The first case on the calendar was that of Nowak & Sheppreaux. Mr. Sicklesteel filed a physician's afidavit signed by Drs. von Neupert, declaring Nowak to (sic) ill too (sic) appear in court. By mutual agreement the hearing of this case was put over until the last. At the conclusion of the other three cases Mr. Smith, attorney for the complainants, asked that this case also be called at this time, as he was a long way from home and he did not anticipate the general result would be any different. He asked as a special favor that the case go on. Mayor Walters replied that "we" recently had some favors to ask of Smith and he did not feel disposed to grant them. Therefore he could not see wherein the council was under any obligations to Smith. The council then insisted on adjourning at once, until 8:45 tonight. The hour is set late because of the Business Men's banquet tonight. While the fact was not mentioned by Mayor Walters today that the reason the council was so insistent on adjourning was that there were other legal matters of importance that demanded immediate attention and which in fact were not disposed of until 11:45. It is understood that the matters referred to were in connection with the tax equalization litigation between the city and county.

At the outset of the hearing Wednesday night Mr. Smith offered to adjourn the hearing of the four remaining license cases for two weeks, or until the regular meeting in June in order to give time to get a hearing on mandamus proceedings, in the circuit court. Mr. Sicklesteel wanted the postponement to be indefinite, as, he said, he knew it would be impossible to dispose of the mandamus proceedings before the next council meeting. Mr. Smith refused to agree to any such form of postponement and the mayor decided the trial should go on now.

In the Strong case Frank Strong was the only witness examined. He pleaded guilty on two separate counts in Justice Park's court. The minor to whom he sold in one case was Irving Fitzmaurice and in the other it was Eldo Timlin. Timlin is a very conspicuously crippled boy who lives opposite the Soo line station and spends a great deal of time on the depot platform. litigation between the city and county.

At the outset of the hearing Wednesday night Mr. Smith offered to adjourn the hearing of the four remaining license cases for two weeks, or until the regular meeting in June in order to give time to get a hearing on mandamus proceedings, in the circuit court. Mr. Sicklesteel wanted the postponement to be indefinite, as, he said, he knew it would be impossible to dispose of the mandamus proceedings before the next council meeting. Mr. Smith refused to agree to any such form of postponement and the mayor decided the trial should go on now.

In the Strong case Frank Strong was the only witness examined. He pleaded guilty on two separate counts in Justice Park's court. The minor to whom he sold in one case was Irving Fitzmaurice and in the other it was Eldo Timlin. Timlin is a very conspicuously crippled boy who lives opposite the Soo line station and spends a great deal of time on the depot platform. The witness has been driving hacks and baggagewagons for his father N. Strong, sr., for upwards of 15 years previous to going into the saloon business a short time ago. On the stand Mr. Strong denied that he ever knew Eldo Timlin. He also denied ever having sold him or the Fitzmaurice boy liquor.

When the original Kotlewski case was under review in the municipal court, the defendant admitted in court so the record states, that his father-in-law, acting as his bartender, sold the liquor to Martin Moses, a posted person. The chief of police testified that he went into Kotlewski's saloon on Feb. 25 and found Moses standing at the bar with a half filled glass of beer in front of him. The only other customer in the saloon was a man who sat at a table 10 feet away.

On the stand Kotlewski denied admitting that his father-in-law sold liquor to Moses. He denied that Moses had ever been "posted" in any manner in his saloon. He denied that he ever sold him intoxicants in any manner, and asserts that the half glass of beer Hafsoos referred to belonged to the man sitting over at the table.

A remarkable feature of the defendants' testimony in all these cases is that, even though absolutely innocent, all profess to have believed it cheaper to plead guilty and pay a heavy fine and costs than to attempt to establish their innocence.

Mayor Walters wishes it stated that at the close of this trial tonight he will make a formal explanation of the stand he has taken in these cases and will outline his new policy for the regulations of the saloons of Stevens Point. In view of the circumstances it is expected there will be a large attendance at the meeting tonight.

**********

Gazette
(Stevens Point)
25 May 1910

ALL FOUND NOT GUILTY

All Saloon Keepers Charged with Selling Liquor Contrary to Law Are Acquitted

The council held adjourned meetings on Wednesday [18 May, 1910] and Thursday [19 May, 1910] evenings last. On Thursday evening the cases against three saloon firms, Strong Bros., Peck Bros. and August Kotlewski, were disposed of, all being acquitted of charges preferred against them.

Mr. Smith, of Madison, attorney for the W.C.T.U., who are prosecuting the cases, stated that the case against Shepreaux & Novak was first on the calendar. Mr. Sicklesteel their attorney, stated that Mr. Nowak was ill at home with rheumatism, presented a letter from the Drs. von Neupert to that effect, and asked that this case be placed at the foot of the calendar, which was done by mutual agreement.

Mr. Smith made a proposition that the hearing in the four cases before the council be adjourned until the first Tuesday in June, and that a writ of mandamus be asked from the circuit judge. Mr. Sicklesteel objected to a continuance to any specified date as Judge Webb will be busy with jury cases for at least two weeks, but would consent to adjourn these cases indefinitely.

Not being able to agree, the council proceeded to the trial of Frank and Nelson Strong, Jr., charged with selling liquor to Irving Fitzmaurice and Eldo Timlin, minors. After reading the records in court where these parties had plead guilty and paid a fine, Mr. Smith announced that his case would rest.

When Frank Strong was called to the stand, Smith objected to any testimony being introduced by the defendants, as their admission of guilt is conclusive and cannot be impeached or denied, and that anything to the contrary is incompetent and immaterial. The witness was allowed to answer in his own behalf and testified that he does not know Fitzmaurice or Timlin and never sold them liquor. At the conclusion of his testimony the council was a tie as to revoking the license, 6 to 6, the vote in favor of acquitting Strong Bros. being as follows: Ayes--Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, Urowski. Nays--Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, Sparks. Mayor Walters decided in favor of the defendants.

The case of Peck Bros., charged with selling liquor to Carl Dake, a minor, was next called, Mr Smith making the same objections to testimony being introduced, but both defendants denied selling or giving liquor to Dake or knowing who he was. One of them, like all the other defendants, had plead guilty and paid his fine, as he "was advised to do so, because it would be cheaper than to hire an attorney and fight the charge." The council by a vote of 7 to 5 voted to discharge Peck Bros., Alterburg voting in their favor.

Aug. Kotlewski was charged with selling or giving liquor to Martin Moses, a blacklisted person, and Chief Hafsoos testified that he entered the saloon, found Moses with a partially filled glass of beer in front of him, and that Kotlewski later stated that his father-in-law had given Moses beer. This testimony was denied by Kotlewski, and at the conclusion Scribner moved that his license be revoked, which was seconded by Redfield, but the council was again a tie, the vote being the same as in the Strong case, and the mayor decided that the saloonkeeper should continue to do business at the old stand, corner S. Second and Clark streets.
Friday evening the one remaining case, that in which Shepreaux & Nowak are chrged with selling liquor to Hyman Fisher, a minor, was called. Mrs. Philomena MacMillan testified that in company with Mrs. Lee Betlach and John Donahue she went to the vicinity of the saloon, gave Fisher a bottle and ten cents and told him to go in and buy brandy. Fisher went in the front door, while Donahue entered at the rear. She had retained the bottle and contents, which she said contains brandy and produced the same in court. The witness testified that Shepreaux called on her later and offered $20 if she would drop the prosecution against him:; that he admitted selling the stuff to Fisher, and said that he couldn't support his family if she persisted in her determination to prosecute him.

When Shepreaux was called, Smith made the same objections to having him give testimony as he did with other witnesses on the previous evening, but no material questions were asked the defendant by the attorney on either side. Mr. Smith, attorney for the prosecurtion, after the testimony was closed, delivered a strong temperance lecture of about twenty minutes, denouncing the liquor traffic generally. All dealers, he said, are criminals and law breakers, some worse than others.

During the trial of all the six cases against the saloonkeepers, no evidence has been introduced by the prosecution to show that the complainants, members of the W.C.T.U. are or were residents of Stevens Point, and Mr. Sicklesteel, representing the saloonkeepers, gave his opponents a surprise that appeared to them like a flash of lightning from a clear sky.

The case of the state ex rel Mason vs. C.E. Boles, city clerk of Grand Rapids, et al., tried before the circuit court for the county of Wood, Hon. Charles M. Webb, presiding, was an action brought by Mason and Johnson, saloonkeepers of the city of Grand Rapids, for a writ of certiorari to reverse the decision of the common council of the city of Grand Rapids revoking the license of the said Mason and Johnson, for permitting gambling in their premises or appendages thereto. After the hearing of the case the council revoked the license and for the purpose of reviewing the decision of the council, the matter came up before Judge Webb. One point of the case before Judge Webb which is important in the Shepreaux case, Mr. Sicklesteel said, was the question as to whether or not the failure on the part of the plaintiffs to prove the allegation that they were residents of the city was material and that for want of such proof that the council did not have power or authority to revoke the license. Judge Webb in passing upon this point said, "The statutes referred to in effect provide that no person other than a 'resident' in the city can make the complaint necessary to set this proceeding in motion. The complaint in the present case alleges that the complainant was such resident. No evidence was offered at the trial tending to prove that fact, if it was the fact. Plainitffs (sic) in error urge that failure to prove the fact of such residence, constitutes a failure to prove a jurisdictional fact, without which the prosecution cannot stand. I have concluded to adopt this construction of the statute as the proper one, and so hold."

Notwithstanding the above clear-cut decision on the part of Judge Webb, and which Mr. Sicklesteel had kept "up his sleeve" for several days, the vote again stood a tie as to the guilt or innocence of the defendants, same as in the Strong case, and Mayor Walters again gave the defendants the benefit of his decision.

Before adjourning Mayor Walters said he believed the ladies of the W.C.T.U. were ill advised in bringing these cases to trial, and that the defendants had been trapped against all rules of fair play.

1910 Saloon Cases, Official Record

Stevens Point Daily Journal
14 May 1910
OFFICIAL COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

Council chamber, city of Stevens Point, Wis., April 12, 1910.
Adjourned meeting of the common council of the city of Stevens Point, Wisconsin held in the council chamber at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Tuesday, April 12, 1910, Mayor Cashin presiding. Aldermen present: Cook, Gee, Hodsdon, Schenk, Scribner (5). There being no quorum present, council regularly adjourned until 7:30 o'clock p.m. Thursday , April 14, '10.

Attest: N.L.Gross
Deputy City Clerk

Council chamber, city of Stevens Point, Wis., April 14, 1910.
Adjourned meeting of the common council of the city of Stevens Point, Wisconsin held in the council chambers at 7:30 o'clock p.m. Tuesday, April 14, 1910, Mayor Cashin presiding. Aldermen present: Abb, Altenburg, Cook, Firkus, Gee, Hodsdon, McDonald, Pagel, Schenk, Scribner and Urowski.
His honor stated that the object of the meeting was to take action on the liquor license question. City Atty. Owen advised that he would guide the council as he thought would be correct. He stated that it would be necessary that all testimony be taken down in shorthand and advised that D.J. Leahy be sworn in as reporter. Upon motion of Ald. Abb, Mr. Leahy was sworn in.
J.B. Smith of Madison, Wis., appeared for the plaintiffs and D.I.Sicklesteel for the defendants.
The case against Klish Bros. was first taken up. Sicklesteel filed a demurrer to the complaint upon which Smith asked the council that it be overruled. Upon motion of Ald. Scribner the demurrer was overruled, all voting aye. Sicklesteel filed an answer to the complaint upon which Smith made a verbal demurrer. Sicklesteel asked that the demurrer be overruled. Upon motion of Alderman Schenk the demurrer was overruled, all voting aye except Scribner.
In the case of City vs. Julius Ritski, Sicklesteel filed demurrer to the complaint. Upon motion of Ald. McDonald demurrer was overruled, all voting aye except Scribner.Sicklesteel filed an answer to complaint to which Smith filed a verbal demurrer. McDonald moved that Smith's demurrer to answer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner.
In the case of City vs. Nowak & Shepreau, Sicklesteel filed demurrer to complaint which was upon motion of McDonald overruled, all voting aye except Scribner. Sicklesteel filed an answer to complaint to which Smith filed a verbal demurrer. Upon motion of McDonald Smith's demurrer to answer overruled, all voting aye except Scribner.
In the case of City vs. Frank Strong and Nelson Strong, Sicklesteel filed demurrer to complaint. Ald. McDonald moved that demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner. Sicklesteel filed an answer to complaint, upon which Smith filed a verbal demurrer. McDonald moved that Smith's demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner.
In the case of City vs. Anastacia and George Peck, Sicklesteel filed demurrer to complaint. McDonald moved that demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner. Sicklesteel filed an answer to complaint, to which Smith filed a verbal demurrer. McDonald moved that Smith's demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner.
In the case of City vs. Aug. Kotlowski, Sicklesteel filed demurrer to complaint. McDonald moved that demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner. Sicklesteel filed an answer to complaint, to which Smith filed a verbal demurrer. McDonald moved that Smith's demurrer be overruled. Motion carried, all voting aye except Scribner.
Mr. Sicklesteel asked that the defendants be tried at the present time, as he had urgent duties out of the city later. Mr. Smith asked that the trial be deferred until a later time in order to allow him to collect data on the liquor question.
Ald. Redfield moved that the council adjourn until Friday, April 15, at 7:30 p.m. Motion lost by the following vote: Ayes—Cook, Gee and Redfiled: nays—Abb, Altenburg, Firkus, Hodson, McDonald, Pagel, Schenk, Scribner, Urowski.
Ald. Schenk moved that the case against Klish Bros., Julius Ritski, Nowak & Shepreau, Frank and Nelson Strong, Anatacia & Geo. Peck, and Aug. Kotlowski be continued until Tuesday, May 10th, at 7:30 p.m., and that they be made the special order of business at that time. Motion carried.
Upon motion of Ald. Abb, council adjourned.

Attest: N.L.Gross
Deputy City Clerk

**********

The Gazette
15 June 1910
CITY GOVERNMENT
Official Synopsis of Proceedings of Common Council

Council Chamber, City of Stevens Point, May 3, 1910

Regular meeting of the Common Council held in the City Office, Tuesday evening, May 3, 1910, Mayor Walters presiding.

Members present: Abb, Altenberg, Cook, Heffron, McDonald, Redfield, Schenk, Scribner, Port, Firkus, Urowski.

The minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved.

Upon request of D.I. Sicklesteel, attorney for the defendants in the cases of C.I. Howard et al., vs. A. Klish and G. Klish, C.I. Howard et al., vs. J. Retzke, C.I. Howard et al., vs. A. & W. Peck, C.I. Howard et al., vs. Sheppreaux and Nowak, C.I. Howard et al., vs. Kotlowski, and C.I. Howard et al., vs. Frank Strong and Nelson Strong, Jr., the hearing was postponed from May 10, 1910, at 7:30 P.M. to May 12, 1910 at 7:30 P.M. attorneys for complaintants and defendants having signed stipulations to that effect, and Attorney Sticklesteel as attorney for the defendants having waived all rights of protest or objection that he might have by reason of such postponement.

Moved by Ald. McDonald, and seconded, that when the council adjourns tonight, the adjourned meeting will be held on May 12, 1910, at 7:30 P.M. and this motion was adopted.

[...]

H.J. Finch.
Dep. City Clerk

*********

Council Chambers, City of Stevens Point, May 12, 1910

Adjourned meeting of the Common Council held in the city offices, Thursday evening, May 12, 1910, Mayor Walters presiding.
Members present: Abb, Altenberg, Cook, Heffron, Sparks, Port, Firkus, Urowski.

[...]

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al. for the revocation of the license of Albert and George Klish, called. Complainants present are represented by J.B. Smith of Madison, Wis. as their attorney. Defendants Albert and Geo. Klish present and represented by D.I. Sicklesteel of this city as their attorney. Mayor and council represented by W.F. Owen, City Attorney.

The complainants' attorney introduced certified copies of the record of the State vs. Albert and Geo. Klish tried in the Circuit Court of Portage County, Wisc. Complainants rest.

Defendants call as witnesses George and Albert Klish. Testimony closed, as complainants' attorney stated he did not wish to cross examine.

The council went into executive session, and a resolution was introduced dismissing the case, and it was adopted by the following vote: Abb, Altenberg, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski voting aye: and Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks voting nay.

Upon motion, the council adjourned until May 13, 1910, at 7:30 P.M.

H.J. Finch
Dep. City Clerk

**********

Council Chambers, City of Stevens Point, May 13, 1910

Adjourned meeting of the Common Council held in the Council Chambers on May 13, 1910, at 7:30 P.M. With Mayor Walters presiding, and all members present.

[...]

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al. for the revocation of the license of Julius Retzke was then called. Complainants were present and represented by their attorney J.B. Smith. Defendant Julius Retzke present and represented by attorney D.I. Sicklesteel. W.F. Owen, City Attorney, present representing the Mayor and Common Council.

The complainants' attorney introduced certified copies of the record of the State vs. Julius Retzke tried in Justice Park's Court in the city of Stevens Point, Wis.
John Hafsoos and J.W. Drake were sworn in as witnesses and examined. Complainants rest.

John Korda [-2] was sworn in as interpreter.

Julius Retzke , Max Retzke, and Louis Retzke were sworn and examined for the defendants. Defendants rest. John Hafsoos re-called for the complainants.
Testimony closed.

A resolution was introduced dismissing the case, and adopted by the following vote: Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski (6) voting aye: and Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks (6) voting nay; and his honor cast the deciding vote in favor of dimissing the case.

Upon motion, the council adjourned until May 18, 1910, at 7:30 P.M.

H.J.Finch
Dep. City Clerk

**********

Council Chamber, City of Stevens Point, Wis., May 18, 1910


Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the City of Stevens Point, Wis., held in the city offices on May 18, 1910, at 7:30 P.M. with Mayor Walters presiding, and all members present.

[...]

A motion was introduced to have the council go into executive session to take up the liquor cases. This motion was lost by a vote of seven to six, the Mayor casting the deciding vote.

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al. for the revocation of the license of Frank Strong and Nelson Strong was then called. Complainants present and represented by J.B. Smith as their attorney.. Defendants present and represented by their attorney D.I. Sicklesteel. Mayor and Council represented by W.F. Owen, City Attorney.

The complainants introduced certified copies of the records of the two cases of State vs. Strong Bros. tried in the Justice and Circuit Court.

Complainants rest.

Frank Strong sworn and examined for the defendants.

Defense rests. Testimony closed.

A resolution was introduced dismissing the case, and adopted by the following vote: Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski (6) voting aye: and Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks (6) voting nay; and the Mayor voting aye.

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al.asking that the license of Anastacia and William Peck be revoked was then called. Complainants present and represented by their attorney J.B. Smith.. Defendants present and represented by attorney D.I. Sicklesteel. Mayor and Council represented by W.F. Owen, City Attorney.

Complainants introduced certified copies of the records of the case of State vs. A. & W. Peck held in Justice Park's court. Complainants rest.

Anastacia and William Peck sworn and examined for defendants. John Korda[-2] sworn as interpreter for William Peck. Defendants rest. Testimony closed.

A resolution was introduced directing the dismissal of the case, and was adopted by the following vote: Abb, Altenberg, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski (7) voting aye: and Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks voting nay.

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al. asking for the revocation of the license of August Kotlowski was then called. Complainants present and represented by their attorney J.B. Smith.. Defendants (sic) present and represented by his attorney D.I. Sicklesteel. Mayor and Council represented by W.F. Owen, City Attorney.

Complainants introduced certified copies of the record of the case of State vs. Aug. Kotlowski in County Court.

Complainants rest.

August Kotlowski sworn and examined for defendant. John Korda [-2] sworn as interpreter.

Defendants (sic) rest.

John Halsoos sworn and examined as witness for defendants. (sic)

Testimony closed.

A resolution was introduced asking that the license be revoked, and was defeated by the following vote: Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks voting aye (6): and Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski and the Mayor voting nay.

A resolution was then introduced asking that the case be dismissed, and was adopted by the following vote: Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski voting aye: and Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks voting nay.

Upon motion , the council adjourned until 7:30 P.M. Of May 19, 1910.

H.J. Finch
Dep. City Clerk

**********

Council Chambers, City of Stevens Point, Wis., May 19, 1910
Adjourned meeting of the Common Council of the City of Stevens Point, Wis., held in the city offices, May 19, 1910, at 7:30 P.M. with Mayor Walters presiding, and all members present.

[...]

The case of Carrie I. Howard et al. asking for the revocation of the license of Paul Shepraux and John Nowak was then called. Complainants present and represented by their attorney J.B. Smith.. Defendant Shepraux present and represented by attorney D.I. Sicklesteel, who stated that defendant Nowak was sick, but he was ready to proceed with the case. W.F. Owen, City Attorney, present representing the.Mayor and Council.

The Complainants introduced certified copies of the case of State vs. Paul Shepaux and John Nowak tried in the Circuit Court, and Mrs. Philomena McMillan sworn and examined for defendants [sic, complaintants?]


Paul Shepreaux sworn and examined as witness for defendants. Defendants rest. Testimony closed.

A resolution was introduced asking that the case be dismissed, and was adopted by the following vote: Abb, Firkus, Heffron, Port, Schenk, and Urowski (6) voting aye: and Altenberg, Cook, McDonald, Redfield, Scribner, and Sparks voting nay. The Mayor voting aye.

Upon motion , the council adjourned.

H.J. Finch
Dep. City Clerk