The San Francisco call., 1896-03-26
Desires a Distinction Made Be-
tween Moral and Immoral
Places.
A CONFERENCE TO BE HELD.
The Police Commissioners Will Be
Asked to Recommend a New
Ordinance.

One of the earliest tasks of the California
State Protective Association will be to
secure the passage of new ordinance re-
lating to side-door saloons.
This action, among others, was deter
mined upon at the last meeting of the
association. The present law has never
been thoroughly put to the test OF
its validity, but it is the opinion oi
some of the members of the association
that if it were it would be declared invalid.
The association in its proposed action dis
avows any intention of obstructing the
movement to have the known side
entrance pitfalls abolished, but is de.
sirous of having a discrimination made
between the resorts for immoral women
and those saloons which provide side
entrance for the convenience of gentlemen
who desire to hold a private interview and
at the same time indulge in social cock
tail or an innocuous gin-o-lin.
With this purpose in view a conference
will be held some time next week between
the trustees of the association and the
Board of Police Commissioners. To the
latter will be submitted the whole matter,
and they will be asked to recommend to
the Supervisors the desired measures.
The conference had been set for last Tues
day but the death of the father of Com
missioner GunSt caused it to be postponed.
George w. Baker, the attorney for the
association, speaking of the matter yester-
day, said:
when the association was organized in
1894 the side-door ordinance had already
been enacted, and something like $50
arrests had been made for violations of it.
This association is not organized for the
purpose OF opposing reasonable ordinances
nor to counsel mem bers to violate any
ordinance, whether legal or illegal, until
the same has been taken up by the asso-
citation and tested in the courts. Any
ordinance, however, which the board of
directors of the association believes un-
reasonable will be taken up and tested in
the courts, before municipal bodies, or the
Legislature, but in every case it will insist
on its members being law-abiding and
not undertaking to set at defiance the con-
stituted authorities.
1--WE have never paid any attention to
this side-door ordinance because We were
not called upon by any of our members to
investigate it, as the arrests were made
before our organization was effected.
"If it should happen that any consider
able number of our mem bers were ar
rested under the provisions of this law for
become the duty of this association and
myself, as its attorney, to take up the con-
sideration of the ordinance so far as its
legal status is concerned. If upon that
investigation l found the ordinance was
unreasonable it would then be the duty of
the association to test its validity, carry
ing it to the highest court il necessary,
and without expense to the particular
members prosecuted.
'tIf on the other hand it should be deter
mined that the ordinance was legal we
would advise our members to conform
to it,
What do you mean when you speak OF
the ordinance being legal?'' was asked.
"By speaking of the ordinance as being
legal [ mean that the right to pass tits one
that properly and legally falls within the
police powers of the Supervisors, and that
they have not transcribed their powers by
its enactment.
1.-The present status of this ordinance is
peculiar and uncertain. One of the cases
for violation of it was placed in the hands
of Cross, Hall, Ford d Kelly, a law firm oi
standing in this City. 1t was the opinion
of Mr. Cross, who had charge of the case
that the ordinance was invalid and that ii
could be successfully resisted. The case
was tried in the first place in one of the
police courts-I believe in that of Judge
Low-and the defendant was convicted
The case was appealed to the Superior
Court, and upon the motion for the allow
ance of the appeal Mr.. Hall argued the cast
very elaborately before Judge Bahrs, with
the result that new trial was ordered in
the Superior Court.
ssThat was considered at the time by al
OF the sidedoor people as a victory in theil
favor and as virtually declaring the ordi
nance in question invalid. This decision
brought down on Judge Bahrs the censure
of the reformers and the press as main
tanning the validity of the side door;
against what the Civic Federation and
others considered valid exercise of the
police powers. After the appeal was al
lowed the case was continued for several
months, and was finally sent to Judge
WalIace's court from Judge Bahrs depart
ment. But when the case came up fol
trial and Judge Wallace learned that il
had been transferred to his court from
Judge Bahrs' department he declined to
try 1t, and Immediately returned it to hi:
ditfident colleague, as he did not consider
that it had come legitimately before him
"When the case came up before Judg,
Bahrs the defendant, rather than go to tn,
expense of employing counsel. pleaded
guilty and was fined 500 without being
tried.
so it leaves the question of the validity
of the side-door ordinance still an Oper
one IN all the courts. MoSt OF the otne
defendants have pleaded guilty in th,
Police Court and paid fines of $40, and tn,
remaining defendants will probably do th'
same thing.
'sIn cases where it is known that sidt
doors are maintained for immoral pur
poses-that is. where young girls can b,
taken and piled with drinks till made
helpless-this association will not onl,
not defend the person arrested, but woult
assist the authorities in the prosecution o
the offender.
1.-The trouble with the present ordinance
is that it does not distinguish between
what | would call the legitimate sde-doo
saloon, where one can go with a friend 70
a social time or with d gentleman to nolt
private business interview, and thos
places which are dangerous pitfalls TO
Young and innocent girls. Ali are placed
under the same ban by this ordinance, ant
it is this objection that We would like te
see remedied."