Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1885-02-06
LICENSING CABLING

Our evening contemporary says Of As
semblyman Jones; 1--WE thought he had
been elected by the citizens of this city 10
work in their interests His and his col
leagues efforts to increase the salary list
of this county 5000 per year were GER
tainly not in the interest of the taxpayers.
But this was nothing compared to his
effort to take away, through his bill upon
gambling, $4,000 annually from the rev
enues of this city. Mr. Jones well knows
that the plan Of licensing gambling has
been the very best thing that ever hap
pened for the young men Of this city,
We do not know what Mr.. Jones knows or
thinks, nor what motives prompt him.
But we do know that his bill to prevent
ing the shield of quasi authority about
that which the State prohibits and de-
clares to be crime, Is proper bill and
should pass. We treat such measures on
their merits, irrespective of Mr. Jones or
any other legislator or their motives.
All this iteration about the licensing
of gambling being the best thing
that ever happened for the young men
of this city" is stuff and twaddle. 1t
is the veriest rot. 1t has been harped
upon and mouthed over, until some very
good people have been lead to really
believe it. But it Is not true, and if it
were true, it Is no defense. The truth is,
gambling has increased since certain games
were licensed Faro tables may not have
multiplied but the spirit of gaming has
greatly augmented. We venture the asser-
ton that under this influence more Young
men have gone to the dogs than in a like
prior period walked the downward path to
shame. All this talk about it being
beneficial to youth Of the city is based on
the shallowest of groundwork 1t will do
for the kind Of morals that city ordinances
attempt to inculcate. The law Of the
sovereign State of California prohibits
certain practices; City Council assumes
to license these self-same practices. What
brazen front must one wear to attempt to
justify this contemptuouS action. The Off
GERS who made the ordinance do not at
tempt that much. They are manly enough
to admit that their act is unlawful, and for
that they are at leas; entitled to respect.
They do say that the police force a CITY
Board elects is so corrupt that it can be
bought and sold by gamblers, and hence
the laws are not enforced against them.
To head OF these corrupt police officials
and plump the brides they formerly took
to remain blind to the existence of the
games-into the city treasury, 4 license
ordinance was passed 1t is need
less to point out the Inconsistency and
paradoxical character of the argument adj
vaneed in favor of the ordinance-that is.
We can license gambling and open the
shops, and prevent the police arresting and
prosecuting under the State law,
but we cannot elect police officers
whom the gamblers cannot buy
up, if we do not license the
games" 1t is sad commentary upon the
moral condition of Sacramento that eleven
men cannot be found in it 10 be honest for
official position and 500 month. But
We and the officials know that if the Police
Commissioners of Sacramento so decreed
it, not gambling shop in Sacramento
could run a week, open or with closed
wickets What farce it is to declare that
the police force can compel gamblers to
open their doors and take license, if any
should refuse, but cannot be brought up to
the point of opening the doors when no
license is asked. In plain words let it be
said the city of Sacramento as municipal
lty is more blameworthy in all this matter
than the gamblers, who at least do not make
pretense to be what they are not We
care nothing about the question whether
the gamblers are for or against the ordi-