The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-03-28
SELLING POOLS.
Is the PrOhibitOry Ordinance Re-
pugnant to Law!

The validity of the ordinance prohibiting
the selling of pools in San Francisco, except
in certain localities, and passed by the Board
Of Supervisors on Monday evening, was the
subject of an animated controversy before
Judges Hoge, Levy and Sanderson yester-
day.
1t will be remembered that George T.
futile was arrested for violating the pro
visions of the new law, but Immediately
sued out a writ of habeas corpus contend
ing that the ordinance is invalid. The writ
was made Teturnabe before the Judges
named sitting in bank, and attorneys Gar
rett W. McEnerny, William W. Foote and
George A. Knight appeared on behalf of the
prisoner, while the city was represented by
District Attorney Barnes and special coun-
sci Louderuack.
Mr.. McEnerny read the petition and
stated that he considered the ordinance in
valid, for the reason that it is against the
legislative policy of the State; that it is I'M
reasonable IN restricting a pursuance of
legitimate business, and that it discriminates
against a certain class of individuals and
conlers an immunity upon others by exempt
ing the latter from the rgor of law for the
violation of which the former have to suffer.
Proceeding, the counsel argued that had
the ordinance.pTohibited boOk-making in a
certain defined district no tenable objection
could be made tD It's validity, but the prov-
sion prohibiting the selling of pools in
all places except on the ground where the
races are held practically cOnferS a mo-
nopOly OF a lucrative calling upon 4 select
few who are so fortunate as to own such
ground. by 1t man Immediately outside
Of the Enclosure Of the race-track would be
guilty of a crime should he sell pool, and
IN similar situation would be the resident
OF the sand-hillS, or Of Kentucky street or
any other out of the way and obscure spot
AdJudged cases bearing upon the question
were cited, and the various controversies
over the validity Of the celebrated sIaugh-
ter-hOuse laws were enlarged upon as ger
name to the point in issue. The counsel
said that he could admit that law prohib-
ting the sale of marketable goods in all
places except q public square set OFF
by the city, as has been done In
the South, would be unobjertionable
from legal point of view, but should such
law command the sale of goods only on a
private tract the manifest improperly of
the law would be perceived. In just such
light did he regard the present enactment.
Mr.. LoudeTback answered, first contend
ing that the cases cited by hIr. McEnerney
were inapplicable to the present contro-
versy, for the reason that the Legislative
powers of municipal corporations enacting
the laws upon the validity of which the ad-
Indications were rendered are more re-
stricted than those Of San francisco. be-
cause coming more indirectly from the Deo-
pie. Furthermore, the counsel c0nteuded
t1at the act conferred no monopoly as the
right to maintain race-cOurse is denied to
no one.
Continuing Mr.. Louderback cited nu-
nierous cases and advanced such argu-
ments as he deemed pertinent to the issue,
alter which Attorney Knight spoke in
further support OF the prisoners conten-
tons.
Thus the entire afternoon was taken up,
n ut TON AFp1- 10
nouncing that II would take the matter I'M
der consideration.