The herald., 1895-05-21

Novcm Der 20. 1890. and is now in force
But the scope of the language employe.
in the proposed ordinance prevents the
egress and ingress of not alone strangers.
or the public. but also the proprietors and
his employee as well. This is such an
invasion of the private rights of saloon
Keepers in taking away from them the
use of their premises, that it would in all
prob ability be declared Invalid by the
courts. 1t is not unlikely that there are
cases where saloons. barroomS and other
drinking places are used as sleeping
places Tor employees and others, and for
purposes. perhaps other than selling in
toxicants. The ordinance forbids all in
cress and egress, and this deprives the
owners of the common and ordinary uses
of their property-uses in no way con
nected with liqduor selling. The justice
of this is doubtful, to say the least. even
if the courts would allow it to stand.
Those engaged in this business are enti =
tied to Justice, the same as all others.
If this ordinance became operative it
would at once compel all those persons
to resort to expensive and annoying liti-
CATION to secure the same rights in the
use and enjoyment of their property
that are freely enjoyed by others i'll all
lines of trade without litigation or even
without question.
A further provision OF section l. which
also seems to be outside and beyond the
scope of the mischief sought to be cor
rected, is that relating to other drinking
places which do not sell Intoxicating
drinks. but which are included in this or
dinance. such as lemonade, soda water
and other harmless and temperance
drinks. Such places ought not to be
classed with resorts where liquors are
sold as beverage, and the right of the
city council under its police powers to
prevent the sale of such drinks, or the
opening of places for that purpose, is as to
its policy very questioable. 1t is funda'
mental principle which involves every en-
actmcnt by munic pal legislative body,
that the sdbect matter covered by the
ordinance must fall within their legisla-
tive powers, and that the ordinance is in
itself n reasonable exercise OF that power.
The proposed ordinance furthermore
encroaches upon the rights and preroga-
tives of the police commission in this.
that it makes it mandatory upon the COM
mission to also revoke license following
conviction and consequent penalty i'm
posed by court. and IN this respect robs
the commissioners of the exercise Of their
own Judgment III cases OF this character.
1t does not seem reasonable nor Just chat,
III addition to the heavy penalties i'm
posed and provided fo- in section 2 of
the ordinance, the owner should also suffer
the iurthcr penalty of actually having his
business and properly confiscated by the
commission. The police commi ission is
on important factor in the administration
cf the city government, and is invested
with large discretionary powers. This
discretion should not be an arbitrary but
q legal discretion, and should be excl
csed within the bounds of law, justice
and reason. To deprive the commission
in any way of such an exercise OF their
rights. and make them merely the instru-
ment to carry out the will of some other
branch of the city government is. in my
Judgment, unjust, unreasonable and un-
republican.
The proposed ordinance. then. meas
ured ana tested by the criticisms herein
named, is found to be unreasonable in
the following particulars
First-It is unreasonable because it pre-
vents a person from occupying his own
premises and going and coming at will
at all hours of the day or night.
Second-Bceause it Furnishes. under Sc
we're penalties, the opening OF visiting OF
places during the period mentioned.
where drinks other than intoxicating
drinks are furnished. which is neither
criminal nor immoral.
.Third-Because it renders the proprietor
of saloon or bar room liable to forfeit
ure of his license for the unauthorized act
of his agents or employees, done without
his knowledge or consent, and even
though such acts might be preferred by
such agent OF employee at the instance
and procurement of business rival, or
other evil disposed person.
Fourth-Because its tutionallty is
SO doubtful that to settle the question inn
poses an unfair burden on the owners of
such places to establish their rights by
expensive litigation.