Daily Los Angeles herald., 1881-05-18
Eos Sueeles 9eratd.
The City's Power to Enforce the
License Ordinance.

The City's Power to Enforce tho
Licsnss Ordinance.
IN SUPERIOR COURT, HOWARD, ].
IN tie matter of George W. Nor.
gan. on habeas corpus.-The NIT.
timus in this case was issued by
Justice Adams In pursuance Of
Art s, Sec. IL. of the Revised Char
ter, which In case Of the bsence OF
the Mayor, or his inability to act,
he may select and deputize any one
Of the Justices Of the Peace in the
city to act In his place as Judge OF
said Court, which Justice during
the term Of his substitution shall
have the same power and perform
the duties of said Court. The pre-.
sumption is that the selection was
regular, nothing appearing to the
contrary.
II appears that Morgan on the
10th day of May, 1880, was convict.
ed Of misdemeanor in unlawfully
conducting and carrying on within
the corporate limits of the city of
Los Angeles, for his own benefit
and profit, the business Of real es-
tate agent without first having OBJ
tained . license from the authori.
tiles Of the city Of Los Angeles, and
fined in the sum Of thirty dollars,
or to DO i'm mprisoned in the county
Jail Of Los Angeles county at the
rate Of one dollar per day until the
satisfaction be paid, not to exceed
thirty days, In default OF payment
shereof, aud being held in impris.
onment under this conviction has
sued out this writ on the ground
that the complaint states no crime
or offsnse under the statute confer
ring authority on the city to pas
the Wdinance in relation to the
license of real estate agents or
brokers.
There was an appeal in this case
by defendant to the Superior Court,
and Judge Sepulveda held the con-
vlction regular and valid.
It would seem that in the alb
ssnce Of an appeal to the Supreme
Court that Judgment should he held
final and res adjudicato.
It would lead to q conflict of ju-
xlsdlction and confusion if CO.
ordinate Superior Court were to re-
verse . judgment of the other
branch Of the Court on writ of
hAbeas corpus. That Court held,
in effect that the ordinance was
valid, the offense misdemeanor
and the convection valid. 10 hold
that Judgment void would In effect
be rev ersal on writ Of habeas cor
pus Of its own judgment by the
Same Court.
Tue case of Kearney referred to
by counsel has no application, as
the Supreme Court held that the
Police Court of San Francisco wa.
one of special limited jurisdiction
and the proceeding showed no ju'
risdiction either Of the person OF
the subject matter. II the iudg.
ment of the Superior Coait were
open to inquiry, I have no douo'
that the decision was correct.
The charter as amended March
30th, 1878, Sec. B, declares: "Tht
Mayor and Council shall have pow
or BY ordinance to provide for the
licensing, regulating, restraining
suppressing and prohibiting, ol
either of any or all hawkers, ped
dlers, pawn brokers, dance cellars
melodeons, shows, circuses, billiard
tables, bowling aud ten-pln alleys
faro banks, gaming with cards
games of chance, gambling houses
tables or stands, bawdy houses, th'
keeping OF bees within the city lin
Its, and any and all nuisances, an,
offensive, immoral, indecent or dis
reputable places, business and prac
tices, or either, in said city; also Il
license the carrying on and con
Quoting of any and all professions
trades. callings, occupations or 9th
or business of any person, natura
or artificial, within the corporal,
limits OF said city; to fix the
amount of license tax thereon ant
to be paid therefor, at such sum,
respectively as said Council shal
think equitable and just, and may
In the name and for the benefit O
said corporation, impose in such
manner as 1t sees proper to pre-
scribe, the payment of such license
taxes by suit, either with or with
out attachment, in the proper
Court, under the laws of the State
or by fine or imprisonment, OF
either, or in such other manner a.
In said ordinance may be provided u
1t is not denied that the Legisla'
ture may impose licenses in the
shape of taxes, and may authorize
the exercise OF the power by munic.
ipal corporations.
In McClintock VS.. Maryland,
4 Wheat, the Supreme Court oil
the United States says: "rhe
power of taxing - Is essen tial
the very existence of government,
and may be legitimately exercised
on the objectsAto which it is appli-
cable to the utmost extent to which
the government may choose to car
ry it,"
In Railroad Va. Pennsylvauia,
16 Wallace, the same Court held,
Field, j.: "The power of taxation
is necessarily limited to
subjects within the jurisdiction of
the State. The subjects are per-
sons, property and business. What.
ever form taxation may assume,
whether duties, imports, eXcises,
or licenses. 1t must relate to one of
these subjects"
This ordinance was before the
Supreme Court Of this State in the
case Of Ah Toy and held valid rs
the exercise Of the police power as
to peddlers.
In the case OF Brooklyn vs. Bes.
lin, 81 N. Y, an ordinance of the
city imposing license of the use
OF carts was held valid as an exer.
else OF the police power. But such
regulations are equally valid
whether treated as the exercise oil
the pOWar Of tRxatiop mr. n,I;oa