Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-07
AN ABSURD DECISION.

The City Trustees, in wise and most
commendable spirit, passed an ordinance
providing for the suppression of what are
commonly known as "dives." The entire
community, excepting only the keepers of
these disreputable places, favored the
policy. These holes are of positive injury
to the city and prolific sources of crime,
and consequently of heavy cost to the city.
The ordinance may have been defective in
some particulars, but in no way beyond
remedy. But the City Attorney, being
appealed to as to the power of the munich
PATTY to act as contemplated by the ordi-
nance, renders an opinion that SO long as
the county licenses these places the city is
powerless to suppress them, and adds that
the license issued by the County Super
Visors must be regarded as superior Such
position, with all due respect for the
legal knowledge of the City Attorney, we
pronounce absurd. If the decision is law.
then the city might as well abandon its
municipal organization. The very pur-
pose OF the creation of the city was to
make its authority supreme within mu-
nicipal bounds, where it is not in conflict
with general laws or in excess of the
powers granted by the charter. The aues-
ton was settled years ago by the Supreme
Court, Justice Sanderson delivering the
opinion, In the case of ex-parte Annie
Smith, wherein he affirmed the power of
the city, within the scope of its granted
privileges, to legislate upon all local police
matters. In that case the city resolved to
regulate dance-houses and saloons where
women were employed, and its right to
carry out its determination was not only
affirmed, but the Court went on at length
to show how broad, necessary and wise
were the grants of the city charter in that
direction. The ordinance stood until the
new Constitution came N with its 'woman's
rights declaration and nullifed it. If the
Supervisors of the county can negative the
ordinances of the city by permits, granting
the privilege to do that which the munich
pality denies and adjudges to be vicious
and detrimental to the best interests of the
city, then there is an end to city govern
ment. We repeat, the position taken by
the city's legal adviser is bad, and not the
law. If is sound, every person who pays
county license of any kind and does
business within the city can refuse to paw
the city license tax and defy the municipal
authorities. This would lead us into all
sorts of absurditieS, and practically trans
fer large part of the management of the
affairs of this city to the people of the
county, who do not pay one cent of the
taxation necessary for the maintenance of
municipal government. The simple fact
is that the license fee collected by the
county on business transacted within the
city Is grant no more than Federal
license, and in the case of the latter the
Supreme Court of the United States has
decided that 1t does not confer the right to
~ ~NS'ASoo Sohtiaiy W the local regula-
lions, and even prohibition by a State.
The right thing for the Trustees to do is
to go on and enforce its ordinances and
when the right to do so is questioned they
will find that the Courts will dismiss the
doubts and absurdities of the City Attor-
ney with word, and affirm the power of
the city to license and to refuse to license.
1t will be serious mistake to accept the
attorneys decision, and acknowledge to the
Supervisors that the city government is
subordinate to their will in these matters.
We are confident, however, that the Su-
pervisors do not and have not made any such
claim, and are not DESTROYS of interfering
IN anyway with the rights of the Trustees.