Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1890-09-02
SMITHS DYE.
NO LIKELIHOOD OF ITS BEING CLOSED
BY THE TRUSTEES.
Sixteen Signatures to His Petition Deemed
sufficient, Regardless of the
New Ordinance.

There were several petitions filed yester-
day with the City Trustees, asking that
body 10 grant permission to as many per-
sons to conduct saloons. Among those
documents was one on behalf of j. d. Smith,
who wants the privilege of running the
saloon on K street which he now operates
without license.
1t was only last week that jury OF his
peers declared that he was not guilty of
conducting saloon without license al
though he had just testified that he had no
license. Under these circumstances. it is
little singular that Mr. Smith should go 10
the trouble of petitioning the Trustees to
allow him to run his place by taking out
license 1t is true, licenses of that kind do
not cost much in this generous-hearted
community, but they amount to something.
An ordinance recently passed by the
Trustees provides that no person shall con-
duct saloon without first presenting to
the Trustees petition signed by msjori.y
of the persons residing in the block in
which 1t is located, and also filing a bond
in the sum of 5000 as guarantee that such
saloon shall be conducted in decent and
orderly manner.
The petition presented by Mr.. Smith
Yesterday was accompanied by bond, as
required, and contained the names of bat
sixteen persons, as follows: D. J. Considine,
Emil Heinrich, Captain NJ. Castro. C. J.
Harkins, Thomas Williams Thomas Nc.
Shane. Abe Wilson, J. Baystiste, ]. 5.
Moore, L, B. Green, n. Zemsnsky, N. 2.
Wildrick. j. N. Payne, t. Allen, J. W. Will
son and J. Zemansky.
Mayor Comstock was the first to express
himself in regard to the matter. He re-
cited the fact that the petitioner had main
tanned VIGOROUSLY disreputable place, and
that it was one of the very class at which
the ordinance was aimed. He said he had
applied to lawyer Clinton L: White for ad-
vice in the matter, and that the latter had
written him in reply letter as follows:
Pursuant to your request, have examined
the petition presented by j. ID. smith, asking
that the Board of Trustees OF Sacramento city
grant him permission 10 conduct a saloon at No.
304 X street, in accordance with The provisions
of Ordinance 2e3.
Section | of the ordinance referred to provides
that an application for permission to conduct
saloon shall be accompanied by and contain the
names and signatures of majority of the citl-
zens residing in the block where such saloon is
to be conducted. The petition referred to is ac
companied by sixteen signatures, and in the
body of the petition it is stated that the slgners
are business men, residents and property-own-
arr of the block. 1t is question of tact for
the Board to determine, whether or not the Pc
tition does contain the signatures of a majority
of the citizens resident in the block and unless
it is so signed by majority the petition cannot
be granted. 1t will probably be within the
knowledge of members of theaBoard that some
of the signers OF this petition are non-residents
of the block referred TO. The Precinct Register
of Sacramento county for the election precinct
IN ic cit Cd CHI rd
of rs electors registered as resident in the block,
SO ii is highly improbable thatth petitioner has
fortified himself with majority of signatures,
as required by the ordinance.
The second section of the ordinance leaves it
to the discretion of the Trustees to grant or
fuse permission to the applicant, even though
his petition may contain the requisite number
of signatures. 1t may readily be conceived
that were the saloon proposed to be opened
would be adjacent to public school bulldog,
or where the character and past reputation of
the applicant were such as to raise doubt of
his conducting reputable place. the Board of
Trustees would refuse the permission asked,
though majority OF the residents of the neigh
borhood should consent.
A bond accompanies the petition IN ques-
ton, but it is not in the form required b, the
ordinance.
Trustee Mclaughlin could discover no
defect in Mr.. Smiths petition other than
that he had cited therein ordinance No
262, instead of No, 263.
The Mayor moved that the prayer of the
petitioner be denied. and Mr. Mclaughlin
offered to amend the motion by referring
the petition back to Mr.. Smith for correc
ton, and that he appear before the Board
at its next regular meeting.
Trustee Wolf conceded with the views
of Mr. Mclaughlin. He believed in grant
ing the petition if the residents in the
block objected to the presence of the
saloon who did not have push enough to
remoostrate against it.
After some further discussion of the sub
ject, Mr. McLaughlin's motion to refer the
petition back to Mr.. Smith for amend
ment was carried the Mayor voting no.