Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1882-08-18

took effect on the tenth day of June follow.
ing, to regulate the establishment, roain.
tehance and licensing of laundries within
certain designated limits, and prescribing
punishment for establishing or carrying on
the business of a laundry in violation of its
provisions.
In its first section the ordinance declares
that after it's passage it shall be unlawful for
any person " to establish, maintain or carry
on any Laundry within that portion Of the
| CITY and county of San Francisco living and
being east of Ninth and Larkiu streets. with.
out having first obtainsd the consent of the
Board OF Supervisors, which shall only be
granted upon the Recommendation of not less
| than twelve cltiZ ms and tax paYers 10 the
block 10 which the laundry is proposed to be
established, maintained or clrrisd en.'
The second section declares that thu Ii.
| cense Collector shall not issue license to auy
person or persons proposing to establish,
| maintain or carry on a laundry within the
limits mentioned, unless he, she or they shall
first have obtained fiom the Board of Super.
| visors their written consent thereto. based
| upon the recommendation of citizens and tax
payers, as provided in the first section.
The third section makes the violation of
these provisions tzisdemesnor, upon convic.
ton OF which the party may be punished by
fine not exceeding 81 COO. or by imprison.
mens not exceeding six month";, or by both.
| The petitioner is g subject of the Emperor
OF China, residing in the city of San Francisco
that country and the United States, and al.
! leges that he hes for the last eight years been
| engaged IL carrying on the business of
| iauudfy within the limits Of the district men
toned, and has ut all times paid the license
| tax exacted from him under previous ordi-
nances, and is still ready to pay any such
license tax; that his license issued under
| said ordinances expired on the 3Osh of June
last; that there now exist and have
existed for years with the residents of
the city and county of San Francisco,
and its citizens and Taxpayers, great
| antipathy ana hatred toward the people of
| his race that combinations among such resi-.
dents have been formed to drive them from
| tbs country; that in consequences OF this feel.
| Ing 1t has been impossible for him TO obtain
the recommendations Of twelve citizens and
taxpayers to carry on his business in the
| block where he is now engaged, as REQUIRED
| by the ordinance of June 10Th and that for
carrying on his business without license is.
sued upon Such recommendation he has been
| arrested, and is now restrained of his liberty
| by the Chief Of Police That officer returns
that he holds the petitioner under warrant
| issued by Justice of the Peace and acting
Police Judge or the city and county, issued
upen charge of misdemeanor against him
! for violating the provisions of the ordinance
IN question, and accompanies his return with
a copy of the warrant.
The question presented is the validity of
the ordinance in requiring, fer the issue of a
license TO establish, maintain or carry on /"
laundry within the limits mentioned, the
recommendation of twelve citizens and tax.
payers in the block in which the laundry ia To
be established, maintained or carried on"
The ordinance, in terms, covers all laun.
dries, whether used for the separate wants Of
amily or for the washing of clothes of
9th rs for hire. We shall assume, however.
that it has reference only 20 laundries of the
latter class. 1t is directed equally against
those who establish them, those who maintain
them and those who carry them on. If the
recommendation of any parties in the block
can be required as condition of grant.
ing the license for either of these pur.
poses, the number is a matter of discretion
with the Supervisors. They may REQUIRE the
Recommendation of double or treble the num-
Der designated they may exact the unani.
nous recommendation of the citizens and tax.
payers of the block. Nor need they confine
the recommendation required to citizens and
tax payers ; any other class my be equally
designated. They may require it of some Of
our worthy resident aliens from Europe
gentlemen of Irish or German nativity In
deed, il they can make the exercise of their
legislative power in the granting OF licenses
dependent upon the approval of anybody
else, they may place the approval with whom.
soever they may deem best, and no one can
control their action.
They have the power, by the Act of April
%, 1868, " to prohibit, and suppress, or ex-
clude from certain limits, or to regulate, all
occupations. houses, places, psstimes, amuse-
merts, exhibitions, and practices, which are
against good morals, contrary to public order
and decency, or dangerous to the public
safety" But the bu.iuess of laundry
that is, the washing of clothing and cloths of
various kinds, and ironing and pressing them
to condition to be ussd--is not Of itself
against good morals, or contrary to public
order or oecenoy, 1t is not offensive to the
senses, or disturbing to the neighborhood
where conducted, nor is il dangerous to the
public safety or health. It would be absurd
to affirm that it is If It be conducted in a
manner that is offensive o. dangerous,
the Supervisors may direct the manner
TO be chraged, and prescribe regulations for
its prosecution. II the building, in which il
is carried on, is by its structure, form or ina
terial unsafe. the Supervisors may by proper
proceedings have it altered or removed. This
power the Supervisors possess with
reference 90 all vacations and the
buildings ia which they are prose-
cuted. All business must be so
conducted as not to endsns er the public safety |
!"
the business of . laundry by itself; the man
nsr or the buildings il witch it is conducted |
are not before us. The ordinance applies az |
well to q laundry in fre-proof building rs
to one in wooden shsn.y. Ia the business
of a laundry by itself there is nothing objec.
tionsble that may not be urged against all |
occupations In the city and county. If,
therefore, the Supervisors can make its pros.
ecution depend upon the approval of others |
in its neighborhood. they may require a SIM |
liar approval for the prosecution of other |
business equally inoTenFive. They may re- |
quire members of the bar to close their |
offices against professional business unless |
they can secure the recommendation in their |
behalf OF such parties In the block where the |
Offices are as may be designated So, too, |
with bankers, merchants, traders, mechanics, |
journalists, publishers, printsrs-indeed, with |
all brain.v orkers and hand workers-the pur-
suit of their vacations in particular localities
may be made to depend not upon their wishes |
their means, the position CT their property.
the facilities afforded for their business, but
upon the favor or caprice of others, whose
actions they cannot control by any legal pro-
ceedings. A party might not even be able to
obtain license to carry on business on his
own land, provided he should possess an en-
tire block, and it should not be occupied bv
Others who could give the recommendation |
exacted. Such q restriction upon the free
dom OF pursuit of q lawful occupation ia not
authorized by any power vested in the Board
of SUPERVISORS and it may be doubted
whether it could be authorized by any legis-
lative body under our form of government.
The Supervisors are, it is true, empowered |
by the Act of March 3. 1872. to license and |
regulate all such csllings, trades and employ. |
meDts, as the public good may require tos6e |
licensed and regulated, and as are not pro- |
hibited by law" but their power cannot be |
delegated by them to Others, or its exercise |
made dependent upon Others consent. The |
power of legislation vested in them is q pub |
lie trust, which can only be executed in con- !
sonance with the general purposes of the |
municipality, and in subordination to the |
general laws and policy Of the State. Their |
ordinances must be reasonable, that ia, not |
oppressive, nor unequal, nor unjust in their |
operation, or they will not be upheld. Such !
is the well established doctrine with respect |
to the legislation of municipal bodies. In |
ex par.e Frank 1t was applied by the Supreme |
Court of California to an ordinance passed by |
the Supervisors, usder the Act In Question, |
exacting license for selling goods, and fx- |
ing different rate where the goods were |
within the corporate limits or in trans;tu to |
the city, and where the goods were without |
the city and not in transitu to it. The ordi- |
names was held 50 be unjust, oppressive, une. |
quail and partial, and for these reasons, as |
well as because it was in restrain. of trade |
between the city and the interior of the State. |
was adjudged to be void. The decision of the |
Court was accompanied by some very Just |
observations upon the Limitations to the exer. |
else of legislative power in the passage Of |
ordinances by municipal bodies. t52 Cal, p. |
606).
Licenses for caliipps trades and emplov. |