Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-08-18
TIE DECISION IN THE LAUNDRY
ORDINANCE CASE.


United States Judges Field and Sawyer
relative to the laundry ordinance enacted
by the local legislature of San Francisco
and aimed against Chinese laundrymen.
A perusal Of the full decision, and care.
ful consideration OF the fundamental prin-
ciples of law underlying it, must convince
the fair minded man that the Judicial mind
could come to no other just conclusion than
that arrived at by the Judges named. The
decision itself is given in full in another
column that cur readers may themselves
analyze it.
The ordinance made it criminally I'M.
lawful for any person to maintain laun.
dry within certain limits without the con-
sent of the Board of Supervisors, and that
must be based upon the Recommendation
OF at least twelve citizen taxpayers of the
block in which the laundry was proposed
to be maintained. A Chinese subject of
TIE Emperor of China was imprisoned un.
der this order, and, being brought before
the United State Judges ON a wri. OF
habeas corpus, he set forth that he had
operated laundry in given district for
q long time; that, because of the local
hatred to his race, he could not secure
the necessary recommendations that he
came to California under the provisions of
treaty between the United States Gov.
eminent and the Empire of China. The
| Judges held the ordinance to be invalid,
and discharged the prisoner. Such in brief
are the facts.
1t is proposition beyond cavil, that all
attempts to enact special legislation by the
use OF general terms must of necessity fail.
In this case it was an attempt to debar
from heretofore common privilege Ger.
tain class-namely, the Chinese-and it
was, therefore, special legislation and in
valid, and the specious guise of impartiality
was stripped from it by the decision
In question. The ordinance covered
all laundries, whether for family ne
cessities or the washing of clothing for
hire; but the Judges assumed, and cor
rectly, that it referred only to laundries of
the latter class. 1t fixes the minimum
number of indorsers required to give the
Board of Supervisors the power to consent
to the granting of license. The Board
could, therefore, in its discretion, require
that the concent of hundreds, or of all the
citizens in the block, should be obtained
Ii the Board can enact that the consent of
twelve must be first had, it can, on the
same ground, exact that the number be
one hundred, or more, and can fix other
qualifications than citizenship and tax
paying for the consenters-as that
they must be of given nationality,
race, color, or age-in fact, if the Board
possesses the power the ordinance indi.
Gates, it is without limit. Under the
Act of 1868 it has the power to prohibit
suppress and exclude from certain limits,
or to regulate all occupations, ETC., which
are against good morals, contrary to pub
lie order and decency, or dangerous to
public safety. Now, the judges named
hold, it will be seen, that the business of
a Misunderstanding clothing and ironing
or pressing it's not itself against good
morals, or contrary to public order or de.
cency. They were concerned with the
business OF a laundry itself the manner of
its conduct was not a question before them,
and they could not go behind the issue
to seek it. The Judges therefore held
that the Supervisors could not make the
prosecution of the business depend upon
the approval of others in its neighbor-
hood; for If they could do SO lawfully,
they might exact it for the prosecu-
ton of any other equally inoffensive,
and thus make the facilities afforded
for business dependent upon the within
or caprice OF those whose action in that re-
gard could not be controlled by legal pro.
ceedings. Licenses for trades and call.
| ings may be required for the purpose of
municipal revenue, or where special knowl-
edge or qualification is necessary, but in
neither case can they be used as a prohib.
tive means against vocations not injurious
to public morals, nor offensive to the
senses, nor dangerous to the public health
and safety. In this case the prisoner was
Chinaman, an alien, resident in Sau
Francisco prior to the passage of the
Chinese Restriction Act, and having the
right, therefore, to carry on any lawful
ordinary business.
Such, in brief, are the central pivotal
points in the opinion of the Judges, and on
which their decision rests 1t is true that
the ordinance was intended to affect only
the Chinese, but the Judges could not ex-
anime into that fact. They had only the
ordinance before them to deal with, and it
contains no clause disclosing upon its face
its true purpose. Had the ordinance named
the race (Chinese) who must procure the
consent OF taxpayers as a precedent condi.
tion to the carrying on of business, there
would be no question as to its being direct
ly opposed to the terms of the treaty with
China. The only question before the
Judges was the naked one, care laundries
conducted for hire proper occupations -
Unless it was shown that the washing of
clothes in district, for hire, was sanitary
question, the ordinance must be held TO
apply to all, and on that basis it must be
matter for the Board of Health to consider.
But the ordinance does not rest its claim
to validity upon such basis, and the
Judges were compelled to take it as it was,
and could not go behind its general terms,
or read between its lines, to see its special
objects.
1t is clear that if white men only main.
tanned laundries for hire in San Francisco
the ordinance would never have been
adopted. The question, let it be distinctly
understood, as to whether Chinese laun.
dries are opposed to good morals and good
health, etc., was not before Judges Field
and Sawyer in any form, and it is absurd
to suppose that they could judicially go be.
hind the ordinance ITSELF 1t is therefore
plain that the Importance some of the
papers of the State manifest concerning the
the defeat before United States
Judges, of special legislation, couched
in general terms, is unreasonable
and illogical. This State has been prolific
of examples of attempts to do that in.
directly by legislation, that could not be
done directly, and every well.informed man
can recall instances in point in the legisla.
tive history of the State. The failure of the
ordinance under discussion and before the
bar of critical Judicial analysis, is simply in
line with large number of failures in kind,