The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1896-12-29
CANNOT LICENSE GAMBLING
No Use Trying to Beat the Devil Around
the Bush.
Mayor Hubbard's Pointed Message on
the Proposed Social Club
License.


was received from Mayor Hubbard:
ITO the Honorable Board of Trus-
tees: herewith return to you ordinance
No. -, entitled An ordinance amend
ing section 10 of ordinance No. 216,"
without my approval. My objections to
this ordinance are two-fold
"First-Ordinance 216, likewise this
ordinance amending the same, provides
that an all-night license shall be grant
ed by the city to any vendor of in
tcxioating liquors on payment of $40
for each quarter for such special Ii
cense. This proposed amendment re-
quires clubs organized for social pur-
poses 10 pay for a similar license the
sum of $500 The disproportionable-
ness of these amounts is too apparent.
The ordinance is discriminating, I'M
equal and absurd.
If the ordinance is proposed in good
faith the objection above mentioned is
sufficient to preclude it's effective OPP
GRAFTON.
''Second-If this ordinance is designed
Indirectly to license gambling, and not
as bona fide ordinance for the pur-
pose of licensing clubs to sell liquors,
it should not have passed your board.
1t is a matter of common notoriety,
with which l presume your board are
as familiar as I am, that the object of
this ordinance is to license illegal
gaming. Now, without discussing the
would it be possible to enforce such
an ordinance as is presented? One
club, or gambling game might pay
= 10 1f al, !,
or game might say, We are not a club,
and we Will pay only the SO license.
Under such circumstances, what
could you do? The police force could
not be authorized to arrest the nom
paying game or gamblers and grant
immunity to him who paid the amount
you seek to require of him; and the
ordinance, even if it could be passed by
you, would be imperative and lead to
endless disputes and turmoils.
4 call your attention, however, to
Section ;5}31 of the Penal Code, which is
broad enough to cover any such de-
sign, and to render amenable to the
laws of the State any person who
would vote for, or attempt to pass, any
such ordinance with the Interior mo-
tive of licensing gambling. The sec
ton referred to provides:
' Every State, county, city, city and
county, town, or township officer, or
other person, who shall ask for, re-
ceive, or collect any money, or other
valuable consideration, either for his
own or the public use, for and with
I he understanding that he will aid, ex-
empt, or otherwise assist any person
from arrest or conviction for a viola
ton of Section $50 of the Penal Code.
or who shall issue, deliver, or cause to
be given or delivered, to any person or
persons any license, permit, or other
privilege, giving, or pretending to give,
any authority or right to any person
| or persons to carry on, conduct, open,
OF cause to be opened any game or
games which are forbidden or prohib-
tied by Section $50 of said code; and
any of such officer or officers who shall
vote for the passage of any ordinance
or bylaw giving, granting, or pretend
ing to give or grant. to any person
or persons any authority or privilege
| to open, carry on, conduct, or cause to
be opened, carried on. or conducted any
game or games prohibited by said Sec
ton $50 Of the Penal Code is guilty of
a felony
L believe that we may as we'll face
frankly and honestly the question that
| is presented to us. We may as we'll
concede-because it is without doubt a
fact which cannot be gainsaid-tha.t
this ordinance is simply to indirectly
| license gambling; and if it is. under the
law, if it should be ultimately passed
! every one who voted for it, or signed
and approved it, would be guilty of a
| felony In face of the plain provis-
| ions Of the Penal Code further dis
| cussion of this ordinance is useless. On
| its face 1t is absurd as an ordinance
| and its only design is to license what
! the law prohibits, and neither you. as
Board of Trustees, nor l, as Mayor
| have any right to attempt to Iegalize
| anything which is in contravention OF
| the general law of the State Respect
| fully submitted
| &C. II. HUBBARD, Mayor"
| Davis said he did not see that there
| was anything in the ordinance that
| spoke Of gambling, but several of the
members said they would not vote to
| pass the ordinance again, and on motion
| of Mckay the message was placed on
| file.
| The ordinance was taken up again
and Wachhorst moved that it be passed
over the Mayors Veto Davis amended
/ 10 lay it over a week and the amend
| ment carried.
hMYrcrNrHrrc