Los Angeles herald., 1890-09-08
Police Commissioners Must
Grant Saloon Licenses
Whether Property Owners Con-
sent or Not.
The Supreme Court of the State
Decides that Way.
The Decision IN the Christensen Case
The Granting of Licenses Not to
be Left to the Arbitrary Will
of any Persons.


day, contains the following apropos of
recent decision OF the supreme court
of the state:
"Any man can now get license to
open liquor dive or run dance hall
on Van Ness avenue" said we'll
known lawyer on reading Judge Saw
yer's decision in the Christensen case
yesterday.
The Judge had rendered his anxiously
looked for decision.
He declared the city ordinance un-
constitutional requiring the consent of
twelve property-owners in a block
where liquor is to be sold before a
license is granted.
Chief Crowley said that he did not wish
toyappear in formal interview on the
subject, or appear as antagonistic to
Judge Sawyer. He has great respect for
the law and the decisions of the courts.
He could not go back on their rulings.
Yet he regretted that the ordinance for
the protection of the city and the main
tenance of the public peace and good or
der should thus be annulled. While
Judge Sawyer might be right legally in
stand why ordinances declared illegal in
San Francisco should be constitutional
in the great cities of the east.
If the decision is sustained by the
United States supreme court, the number
of saloons will be doubled. They will
appear ON the best streets and the
present police force will have to be
doubled to preserve order. The safety
of the city requires limit to be put to
these low resorts. The regular liquor
dealers-men who do a legitimate busi-
ness-are in favor of the usual restric-
tions. Only a short time ago an at
tempt was made to open a saloon on
Van Ness avenue, in the middle of
block of private residences. The people
wouldn't stand it, and they went before
the licensing board and forced them to
refuse the license.
Judge Louderback appeared greatly
disappointed over Judge Sawyer's deci-
sion. He declined to be interviewed.
However, he had no criticism to offer
regarding the judges action. Like the
chief of police, he deeply regretted
it. The case would be carried to
the United States supreme court.
In the course of private conversation
the decision did not do away with the
license law. 1t simply made it possible
for any man, no matter how disreputable
he might be, to take out license and
open saloon where he pleased. There
would be no restriction whatever.
This applies not only to San Francisco,
but to Los Angeles and every village and
town in the state.
A special meeting of the police board
is to be held on Monday to take further
action in the matter. Attorney Louder
back has been retained. He gave notice
yesterday of an immediate appeal to the
United States supreme court.
Judge Sawyer said that he granted
the appeal with pleasure. He was as
desirous as any one to secure the opin-
ion of the highest courts in the land.
He thought final decision could be had
from Washington by December.
The decision opens with an expression
of reluctance in interfering with state
courts in the execution of the laws of the
state, but in this instance the case has
been pending for year past, and "the
petition and record show that the ordi-
nance by which the defendant is held
was, by divided court, declared to be
valid not only under the constitution
violated no provision or laws of the
United States, and he was committed to
custody"
The petitioner applied for a writ OF
error, which the chief justice refused to
allow, and thereby GO deprived him of a
right guaranteed him by the constitu-
ton and laws of the United States to
have the question as to whether the or
dinance does or does not violate the con-
stitution or laws of the United States
reviewed by the supreme court of the
United States"
Having explained his reasons for tax
ing cognizance OF the case, Judge Saw
yer reviewed the ordinance for the vio-
lation of which applicant was held.
"The ordinance states that after JAN
uary l, 1886, no license as retail liquor
dealer shall be issued by the collector of
licenses, unless the person desiring
the same shall have obtained the writ
ten consent of a majority of the board OF
police commissioners of the city and
county of San Francisco to carry on
such business, but in case of refusal
of such consent, upon application, said
board of police commissioners shall
grant the same upon the written re-
commentator of not less than twelve
citizens of San Francisco owning real
estate in the block or square in which
said business of retail liquor dealer is to
be carried on"
The petitioner rendered the amount Of
his license and requested the consent oi
the majority of the police commissioners
to its issue, and was refused. There
were not twelve property owners on the
block in which he carried on business
and license was refused him. He con-
tinued to carry on his business, which
had been long established, and was ar
rested for the violation of the ordinance
The opinion continues: ''Iam unable
to take the case out of the rule laid down
in the decision in Yick Wo VS.. Hopkins,
and Wo Lee VS.. Hopkins, 11S U. S.,
which reads: A municipal ordinance
to regulate the carrying on of public
laundres within the limits of the mu-
nicipality violates the provisions OF
the constitution of the United
States if it confers upon the municipal
authorities arbitrary power, at their own
will, and without regard to discretion in
the legal sense of the term, to give or
withhold consent as to persons or places,
without regard to the compe-
tency of the person applying, or
to the propriety OF the place
..Ioo&o1 for tho narrviuo op of tho