, 1873-03-13
Sunday Liquor Law.

MR. .EDrroR-Believing that ypu have
fallen into grave error in regard to the
San Mateo liquor case. and that the
opinions expressed by you in Tuesdays
issue are calculated (undesignodly on
your party to mislead public opinion,
and thus encourage some to persist in
violating what is, known as the Sunday
law of the Territory. allow me 70 state
wherein think you have been misled.
1st. The court in San MateQ Sas mo-
thing more than simple justice Of the
peace. His rulings, however correct
they might be. are not of equal anthori-
ty with those of similar officers in this
Territory.
I'd, The statute of California differs
from ours in this essential particular,
that it exempts those "who keep open
hotels. boarding houses, etc.
Sd, The suit was brought ito ascertain
if liquor could be sold on Sunday by the
keeper of a tavern" The only question
which seems to have been submitted to
either court or jury was, whether tav-
ern was not the same as hotel. and
was therefore exempt. The jury, not
the court, decided this question afirma-
lively, and acquitted the defendant.
You will find by careful examination
of the report as published in the San
Mateo Gazette, that the opinions there
in expressed. aside from the verdict of
the jury, as well as the constitutional
question, are not credited either to the
court or the lawyers who defended the
case, but are mainly the extrajudicial
opinions of the reporter himself; and
indeed the report is SO written as to
leave it uncertain whether it is not q
burlesque upon the whole affair.
4th, There is not q word to show
"tbat the lawyers on both sides unani
mously concurred in the decision" but
if they did, it was simply this, and no
thing more, that the section of the law
which exempts "hotels," necessarily
includes "taverps," which is only q
different name for the same thing.
5th, The other suits pending, and
which were dismissed by the Prosecut-
ing Attorney. were against the same
party, and for similar offenses.
9th, The court decided nothing in re-
gard to saloons or other places not COM
ing under the term hotel, having the
right to sell liquor on Sundays; that
was only the reporters opinion. Our
statute makes no exemption in regard
to hotels. They have no more right to
open their bars or sell liquor on Sunday
than have the saloons.
The exemption of single county
from the operation of the Sunday law
of this Territory, cannot vltiate or in
validate the law in any other county,
since the best authorities on constitu-
tional law declare, that " the Legislature
is competent to determine whether par
ticular laws shall extend to the whole
State, or TO subdivision of the State
only. Circumstances may require Oh
make acceptable different police regula-
tons in one locality from hose demand
ed in another. See Cooley's Consti-
tutional Limitations, p. 800.
There is no parallel in the case here
and that in San Mateo, nor Is there any
thing to encourage tr justify the hquor
sellers in the Territory in setting the
law at defiance. Until competent au-
thority decides the law to be unconsti-
tutional, or the Legislature repeais the
act, the Committee who have the mat
ter in charge will, without question,
Eight it out on that line, if it takes all
summer" G. F. WHITwoRTH.