Milan Council Defended

" The Miïan village couneil are taking upon themselves authority. Hitchcock & Babcock, saloonmen, executed a bond in accordance with the provisions of the law, but because one of the sureties would not be bulldozed into coming before tbat august body and again swearlng to his responsibility, the bond was rejected." To the Editor of The Register : Sm : - The above appeared in Thk Register last week. In justice to the Milan village council, will you state ihe following facts of the case 1 The liquor bond of Babcock & Hitchcock was pre8ented to the council for approval, but before a vote thereon was taken, a menuber of ihe council arose and made the statement that a rumor was abroad that one of the sureties upon the bond did not own the real estáte claimed as security upon the bond. The member making the statement, with dne peet for his oath of office and his duty to the people in protecting them from a possible and probable loss through defectivo and inadequate security, desired eome farther information in regard to the offered security before approving the same. From the above statement the president of the council sent for the bondsman referred to, to question him under oath in regard to the security offered, as authorized by the statute, and perfectly justifiable under the circumstanoes. Upon the appearance of the bondsinen in question, he refused most emphatically to make any statement under oath, but notwithstanding this very doubtful appearance of the security offered, the vote was taken without further discussion, and the bond of Babcock & Hitchcock was approved by the counci by a vate of three for approval and two against it, five members being present; but from an error in declaring the ballot, the vote was reoorded as rejected. If there is a person in the county o! Washtenaw who doubts that the objecting member had not the very highest justiücation in his objection to vote for approval without a better knowledge of tacts, let that person or persons scan closely the records in the office of Register o! Deeds of Washteuaw county. The Milan village council has considerable experience in dealing with expert liquor bondsmen, and it has become very necessary for them to be very jareful in protecting the public from loss from worthless bonds. Another charge against the council (thoughnotcontained in the article above) is that itdesired a monopoly for the saloon first started, when the real facts are that there is not one member of the council, from president to marshal, but who was willing that Babcock & Hitchcock should get a licenseif good bonds were furnished, as the saloon had been in operation without bonds being filed or tax paid. The bondsman who "refused to be bulldozed" knows as well as the president of the United States, that a man, by simply stating under oath that he is worth or owns one million acres of real estáte and the whole covered with twenty story buildings, and all subject to sale on execution, would not constitute him the owner of oae single foot of land, and such security upon a liquor bond would not be worth as much as a Bohemian oat bond in the Wall-st money roarket. Milan, July 30, 1888.