Attorney Or Newspaper?

The account given by the Argus of the common council meeting,last week, is exceedingly contrary to the truth. It gave the impression to the reader that the only point of difference was a strict or loóse constrnction of the liquor law, and leaves the reader to infer that it is at least a debatable difference. There is no chance for debate about it at all when the case is stated honestly. The Argus did not teil its reader6 the point, andthus acted as an attorney for the saloon rat her than as a newspaper which is desirous of giving its readers the news. It is a mighty bad attorney too. The point is that August Herz's liquor bond bears the name of a man as surety who does not reside in Ann Arbor, and therefore he cannot, according to the express terms of the law, go on the bond. We quote the law: "There ahall also be annexed to each bond requiied by this act an affidavit of 8ach surety thereto, wbich affidavit shall Btate that the aftiant is a male resident and freeholder of the townehip, village, or city in which such bond is offered." It is silly in the Argus to talk about liberal construction of this. There is only one construction poesible. It becomes a question of fact whether the bondsmen are or are not male residents of the city, as well as having the otherqualifications required by the law. It was publicly admitted before the council that one of the sureties did not reeide in Ann Arbor; the city attorney told them the bond could not be legal with non-residents for sureties ; and two members of the council gave the most solenin warnings concerning the wrong and short-sightedness of defying the law ; yet a majority, including the mayor, voted to accept the bond. What do the people of Ann Arbor think about it? ________ Ik the magazine called "Woman," Helen Campbell has started a series of articles on "Prisoners of Poverty Abroad." She tells the horrible story of London's unemployed,-children with no shelter whatever, women living in dust bins, men willing to work but who are starving. The names of 17,000 unemployed are registered. She says: "Their names represent a total of over 50,000 who are slowly starving ; and this mass is known to be bul, a part of that which is still unregistered." This is in London, the richest city in the world. Before this terrible fact, how ridiculousseem the figures of the Giffens, the Wells, and the Atkinsons.who assure people that everything is all right ! And it is in free trade England. Surely, free trade, however beneficial it may be, will not abolish poverty. Last week, The Register said : "Nine membersof thecommoncouucil,including the mayor, are on record as voting that they will not obey the liquor law." The Argus, in reply, declares that it would have been silly to vote for a resolution which merely declares what men shall have liquor bonds ; for, it says, "the law defines that and the resolution was a useless one." The resolution, far from being useless, was very serviceable, for the haste with which it was nlaced on the table showed at once that the majority of the council had no intention of observing the law. The result proved it. The Argus says : "The law defines that," and yet it fails to point out the plain violation of the law by the council. The Argus says : "Xo one had any intention of disobeying it," meaning the liquor law. And yet the mayor o the city voted to accept the liquor bonc of August Herz when he knew it wa not made in accordance with the law It was said on the floor by Mr. Ort man that one of the sureties did no reside in the city, and as every one knew that invalidated the bond. Mr Ortman said that before the vote took place, so the mayor when he voted knew the fact. He deliberately defied the liquor law, and now says in his paper that no one intended to disobey it. He also suppressed the main fact in the Argus report of the common council meeting. ________