Introduction
Daniel Auletto served as a Republican Freeholder from Camden in the early 1930s. He was a political ally of David Baird Jr. He had been born in Pennsylvania in 1897 and was a veteran of World War I. By 1930 he had married, and was living with wife Anna and sons Joseph, Daniel, and Louis at 205 Royden Street at the time of the 1930 Census. He was then operating a retail candy store.
Daniel Auletto operated a taproom on South 2nd Street in the mid-1930s. When political power shifted to the Democrat Party in Camden in the mid-1930s, his political fortunes changed, and with that came problems in getting his liquor license renewed. The bar does not appear in the 1940 Camden City Directory.
By 1947 the bar was definitely gone, as the premises were occupied by Latham Ballance, who operated a restaurant, the Ballance Lunch Room, at that address. Daniel Auletto and his wife were still living at 205 Royden Street in that year.
Auletto Wins Fight For Saloon License
Camden Courier-Post —
Burnett Orders City Board to Renew Permit After Hearing Here
Former Freeholder Daniel Auletto’s taproom license for 520 South Second street has been ordered renewed in a ruling of D. Frederick Burnett, state alcoholic beverage control commissioner.
The Camden excise board had denied Auletto’s application for renewal on charges that disturbances at the taproom necessitated police calls and alleged purchases of illicit liquor. Auletto, at the hearing on his appeal here, denied all charges and produced witnesses to corroborate his own testimony.
Burnett ruled that the municipal board had failed to sustain its charge about Auletto’s conduct of his saloon and that the evidence failed to connect Auletto with the alleged sales of illicit liquor.
Calls Evidence Faulty
“The evidence,” Burnett said, “fails to connect the appellant with the alleged sales of illicit liquor. The record is barren of either any sales of illicit liquor or any possession thereof by him or by anyone for whom he is responsible.
“No charges were ever preferred against him. The issuing authority denied the application without affording the appellant a hearing . . . The denial of a renewal must be founded upon substantial evidence. The evidence in the instant case four calls to quell disturbances, but, with one exception, the disturbances were over when they arrived. On one occasion they found a boisterous crowd inside the premises.
“No formal charges were ever preferred, however, as a result of any of these police calls,” Burnett said.
“It appears that appellant on each occasion co-operated fully with the police and, except in the one instance noted, succeeded in clearing his saloon before they arrived.
“Several residents testified that the premises in question were properly conducted and that they had never observed any brawls or unnecessary noises. At no time had any neighbors made a complaint to the appellant about the manner in which he was conducting his saloon. Under these circumstances, the first point cannot be sustained.
“On the second charge, one witness for the respondent testified that on several occasions he bought whisky from a person known to him as “Butch” in a public room of the saloon; that on each occasion, such whisky was purchased in an unsealed pint bottle with the label defaced and with only parts of a revenue stamp affixed; that the cost was 25c per bottle. The witness expressed the belief that ‘Butch’ cleaned up the licensed premises each morning, and that he had once served him from behind the bar.
“Regular patrons, however, knew of no such person. The appellant was at no time present when these alleged purchases were made, nor did the witness at any time ever have any conversation with the appellant concerning them. A second witness for respondent also testified to making similar purchases. His, however, were made in an alley adjoining the licensed premises from a boy whom he did not know. While the saloon has a door leading to the alley in question, there are some 15 other buildings which also open upon it.”
…fails to substantiate the action of the issuing authority. Accordingly, the action of respondent is reversed. Respondent is directed to issue the license as applied for.”
John L. Morrissey, chairman of the Camden board, testified he voted in favor of renewing Auletto’s license because he felt there was not sufficient evidence before the board to refuse it. The other members of the municipal board are Mrs. Ann Baumgartner, the secretary, and Curtis O. Sangtinette.
Residences Near Saloon
Auletto’s saloon is in a partly industrial and partly residential section. Across the street is a large freight yard and on one corner is a deserted building formerly occupied as a saloon.
Martino Says Commissioner Overruled City 'On Request'
Camden Courier-Post —
State Official Hit By Excise Board
The Camden excise board last night unofficially “censured” D. Frederick Burnett, state liquor commissioner, for reversing its ruling against granting a saloon license renewal to Daniel Auletto, 520 South Second street.
The board, in a meeting at city hall, refused to take action on the Burnett order which was issued Saturday. Thus, it was explained, Auletto’s license will be granted automatically Aug. 11, but without the excise board’s sanction.
Auletto, former Third ward freeholder and present member of the Republican committee, was refused a license July 2. He appealed the decision and a hearing was held July 17 before William S. Gnichtel, representing the State Board of Alcoholic Beverage Control.
Martino Scores Burnett
The excise board’s step last night followed an attack on Burnett earlier in the day by Assistant City Solicitor Edward V. Martino. Martino, who is also counsel for the excise board, charged Burnett reversed the decision at the request of David Baird.
“Commonsense Burnett does not dare to deny that he was approached by Baird on this license, since Daniel Auletto, the licensee, is a Baird henchman,” Martino said. “Baird people have been bragging the license would be issued regardless of how clear a case was presented against Auletto.”
At the board meeting Curtis O. Sangtinette, excise board member, said he wanted to go on record as agreeing with Martino. Mrs. Ann M. Baumgartner, the third member, said: “I have no comment to make except that if the matter comes to a vote again I’ll vote against the Auletto license.”
Auletto License Ascribed to Baird
“I want it recorded that I would vote against the Auletto renewal again. I can’t see the use of having police investigations and the taking of affidavits by policemen if they are not going to be backed up. I think the police department is doing a great job to keep Camden saloons clean, but the board must receive co-operation from the state commissioner to make its work effective,” Sangtinette said.
Aug. 10 Is Deadline
At Morrissey’s suggestion, Aug. 10 was fixed as the deadline for receiving license renewal applications. All holders of old licenses will be considered as new applicants after that date. Morrissey said there are now 212 license holders in the city, exceeding the ordinance limit of 200.
Harry Wieland, 127 Main street, was granted a renewal of his plenary retail consumption license. Applications by Edward R. Hunt, 830 Chestnut street, and Mrs. Francesca Cinagilia, 702 South Second street, were tabled.