Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1896-02-24
DEMURRER ovERRULED.
Iudre wenger Decides That the City
Ordinance Il Valid In Barney
Harvty's Case.


barney G. Harvey was In the police
.out, i.st Friday charged with allow.
inc women IN his saloon after Q y. M,
bo,trsry 10 the city ordinances By
bis counsel, Attorney Armstrong, he
bsmurred TO the complaint and elsimed
kbat inasmuch as the new Constitution
81 the State OF Utah granted equal
kuvileges aud rights to both sexes, the
bty ordinance was Unconstitutional,
L,cause OF discrimination In contra.
Mention 10 the provisions OF the blAte
k,onstItution. In support OF his claim
he cited numerous authorities In cases
4 similar TO the one at bar.
I Assistant City Attorney Hampstead
followed in an argument against the
demurrer. His main contention was
that N the State Constitution rendered
the ordinance invalid, which, how.
ever, he did not admit, then the
marty 10 argue lite invAlidity aud
unjust discrimination was the woman
who wns affected In her right by this
ordinance. Mr.. Harvey could not do
90. He was not the protector Of the
women OF Utah. lie could not use
that argument In trying to rid himself
OF the ofiense charged.
Judge wsnger was not fully salts.
fed as 20 the true status Of the case
and took the matter under Advisement
until this morning, at which time he
submitted Ia effect the following;
Counsel for defendant claims that
under the Constitution q female has
all the civil rights Of mplc citizen
and that said ordinance disofiminatss
against n class of cltizHns who have n
civil right to enter such place OF busi.
ness under and by virtue OF said Con.
slltutloD, and TO aubstantiate his theory,
counsel cites the ll0Ih U. >. page 800
walling VI Michigan ana relies on this
decision to lay the foundation Of this
demurrer.
In tho case Just cited the
supreme court OF Michigan held
that certain regulations might be en-
forced under what Is known A. the
police regulations. The Supreme Court
VI the United States reversed the de-
cl,lon OF the police regulation but on
account OF the conflict OF the matter
VI commerce between the states.
The court says this would be a per
feet Justification Of the act ~ II did not
discriminate against the citizens and
products Of other states In u matter Of
commerce between the slAlos. cat.
not see wherein tue Supreme Court OF
the United States has decided In that
oase that matters OF morality and pub.
ilc health may not be- regulated by
police regulations. In fact that same
decision refers to tho llbth u. =. page
$50 In New orleans Gas Company W
Louisiana Light company wherein
Justice Miller IL quoted a. saying,
"No legislature can bargain away
tho public health or the pub
lie morals. The people them.
selves cannOt do ~, much less their
seryAnts.o This last decision further
sistss, "That there " n power some.
times callsd the police power, which
has never been surrendered by the
states, In virtue OF which they may
within certain llmils control every
thing within their respective territories
and upon the proper exercise OF which
under some circumstances may depend
tboIpublic health, tho public morals or
the public safety IL conooded by all the
cases." IL IL commended that the quos.
lion OF morality lisa question OF senti-
ment and II was suggested that this
might br q question OF sentiment.
l cannot taks that view for the
reason that this 10 n city ordinance.
While there is no preamble stating that,
whereas IL 10 immoral for q female to
DO In q saloon alter the hour OF nine
O'Clock Pun, II IL evident that the
mayor aud City Council 10 passing
said ordinance took that view OF tho
case. l therefore hold that said ordi.
nance IL valid under the police Iegula-
lion protecting the public morals ami
that said ordinances 10 not In conflict
With the Constitution OF the State and
the demurrer 10 therefore overtuled.