Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-05-11
MIR. CnURCH REPLIES.
He Explains Himself in His Letter About
Closing the Dives.

He Explains Himself in His Letter About
Closing the Dives.
EDS. RECORD UNION: In reply to your
article in this mornings ISSUE allow me
that say that my communication on file
with the Clerk of the Board of Trustees
reads as follows:
Gentlemen have considered Ordinance No.
2S1: No penalty is attached and the ordinance
is therefore imperative. AS said to you last
Monday, the general subject matter is in proper
form, but still it is really buncombe so far as
effect is concerned. The city OF Sacramento is
part of the county of Sacramento and the
county licenses cannot be ignored in consider
ing this matter. You may refuse to issue city
licenses to certain places, or you may revoke
those already granted fol- good reasons, but the
same places WILL in all probability, run under
county license. The result of criminal action
brought to close up disreputable places under
such circumstances would always be doubtful.
We now have State law under which the keep
ers of disorderiy houses may be punished. and
1t would be extremely difficult to improve this
law by any city ordinance. If the Board of
Trustees of this city are really DESTROYS of tax
ing effective action towards closing up the dives
of said city, they ought to hold conference with
the Board OF Supervisors of Sacramento county,
and both agree to refuse to issue any license,
either city or county, to any place where LIQUOR
IS sold, which is, in the opinion of the Chief of
Police, conducted in other than lawful, order
ly, reputable and decent manner; and, of
course, to revoke all licenses, both city and
county, when such places have become disrep-
utable after licenses have issued.
And l claim that your comments upon
this communication, printed in your issues
of the 7th 9th and 10th instants, do put me
in false position, and that what l have
said in the above communication has been
misrepresented. Do / say there that $50
long as the county licenses these places,
the city is powerless to suppress them? ?"
or "a that the license issued by the County
Supervisors must be regarded as superior?''
or that the city cannot enforce license
collection or pass a regulation ordinance
without the consent of the Supervisors"
or that "a county license overrides and
supplants the municipal license?" No!
The communication does not discuss either
the legal status of licenses or the power of
the Board to suppress dives under proper
ordinances. 1t was simply bit of pru-
dental advice, having for its object the
speedy and effectual accomplishment of
the desired ending to close the dives.
The Board of Trustees did a neat, cour-
teous and commendable thing in commu-
nicating with the Supervisors, who de-
clined to take action in Withholding licenses
from dives in this city. But can anyone
deny that they might legally have con-
sented to do SO? And had both Boards
agreed to Withhold all licenses, both CITY
and county, to disreputable places, can any
deny that those places would have been
speedily and effectually squelched? As it
was, and now is, the city will have to kill
the dives in Court, one by one, by the en-
forcement of proper ordinances and of the
State law. The carrying out of my sug-
gestions would have obviated all of these
criminal actions, and the expense and III
convenience naturally resulting therefrom.
Hoping that this makes my position clear,
l am. yours, etc, VIM. s. CHURCH,
City Attorney.
Mr.. Church's explanation is given in full.
Since he disclaims having intended his let
ter to the Trustees to be received as legaI
opinion, it remains only to be said that, as
prudential advice, it was ill-conceived,
and the effect has not been beneficial to the
city. The municipality has but one duty
in the premises, and that is to pursue all
who violate its ordinances. and to borrow
no trouble as to the possible defenses Of
fenders may make. The defense feared by
Mr.. Church never has been made-it never
will be-