The morning call., 1894-05-23
SUPREME COURTS DECISION.
The Dive Ordinance Not in Com
fliCt With the Constitution.
MURPHY's RULING AFFIRMED.
Police Commissioners Have the
Power to Refuse Licenses to Per-
sons of Doubtful Character.

The Supreme Court has refused to grant
a writ of mandate compelling the Board
of Pc lice Commissioners 10 grant liquor
license to Edgar n. Foster of the Bella
Union Theater.
This was a test case that sprung out of
the crusade made by the police against the
dives several months ago. A number Of
liquor and dance saloons where women
were eE ployed Of mattresses were brought
to the attention OF the Com missioners, and
in each instance a renewal Of the license
was refused.
Fosters was one of the licenses revoked.
There were three cases in all brought 10
the consideration of Superior Judge Muir
ply upon an application for a writ Of
mandate. In Fosters case it was claimed
that although he had, indeed, once upon a
time retained women in his place as wait
resses, yet that he had discontinued the
practice and was resolved tono longer en-
ploy females
Consequently when Fosters license ex-
pired on June l, 1898 he was considerably
surprised to find that no new license would
be granted to him. He argueds through his
counsel, Carroll Cook. that no matter
what his conduct had been in the past SO
long as there was nothing actually against
him at the time the license expired there
was no reason why his demand should be
met with refusal.
Two other cases were argued Smultane-
OuSly with that of Foster In one case the
applicant argued that the only woman en-
pioyed in the saloon was his own wife,
who was TO all intents and purposes his
partner in the business. He claimed that
he could i'll afford to employ outside help,
and that his wife merely took her turn a.
serving customers at times when he was
unavoidably absent.
The third case was that Of a man whose
license had been revoked because OF his
previous conviction of a felony. This case
Mr.. Cook argued. was one of exceptionally
hard lines. There was a man who had
committed a fault In past life. had ex-
plated that fault by serving out the term
of Imprisonment allotted to him. and was
now DESTROYS of earning an honest living.
Surely the fault of his early years, fully
atOned for, should not now be cast up
against him to his detriment 10 business
prOspe is?
Judge Murphy took the applications
under Amusement, and afterWaTd briefly
denied them all. They were subsequently
taken TO the Supreme Court on appeal,
and in the case of Foster the judgment was
affirmed yesterday.
1t had been claimed and argued by the
appellants that the ordinance of the Board
of Supervisors, passed July 2S, $780, was
invalid, as being in conflict with the
provisions of the consolidation act. The
ordinance held that the Board of Police
Commissioners should refuse to grant a
license TO any person or persons who were
not deemed of good character, who had
transgressed the law in respect to the
employment of women in a serving ca
pacity or who had previously been con-
Victed of a felony.
Under section of the consolidation act
it was provided that in all cases where a
license had been revoked it could be re-
newed on the recommendation of twelve
reputable citizens ana residents of the
Deighborhoud. Twelve such persons, it
was claimed, had been found to come for
ward in support of Ned Fosters applica-
TO have his license.
under former decisions of that tribunal it
had been shown that the municipal law as
made by the Supervisors was in no conflict
with the laws of the Stale. The Super
yisorS gave the Police Commissioners the
power to refuse liquor license to any
person whom they deemed of doubtful
character No matter whether his par
ticular sins lay in the past or the present
ii the Commissioners had reason to believe
that he was not 1T and proper person to
be trusted with a license they had power
to refuse his request.
On these and technical grounds the Su-
Dreme Court decided that the judgmen #
Of the lower court must be affirmed. The
opinion was written by Commissioners
Haines, Temple and Van Clief and in
dor5ed by Justices Garoutte, Harrison and
w. c. Van Fleet