The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1897-04-06
you refused to pass the ordinance until

| ing the objection as to its validity, and
presented it to your board on Febru-
airy 9Th. SO that you might take imme-
| date steps to prohibit this form OF
| gambling. For the past two months
you have had this ordinance before
your board, but you have refused, and
l presume you will continue to refuse
to pass it. Until this form of gambling
! is suppressed it is almost impossible
for the police department to control
other gambling games.
| In answer to your fourth request, viz:
What steps are necessary to insure the
! suppression of these games?" I have to
| say that it will be necessary for your
! board to pass such ordinances and rem
| der such assistance as you can in a
| legislative way, to enable the police
officers to stop such Ubiquitous gamb-
| ling games as exist in this city to-day.
In every instance, when any proposition
has come before your board looking to-
ward the suppression of gambling you
have either refused to act, or you have
/ thWarted every effort I have made to
| reach the games. Several months ago
l asked for one or more detectives as the
Chief of Police did not have officers who
could procure evidence for conviction
in certain cases, but you refused to pro-
vide for them because I would not agree
| to approve an ordinance which would
make the term of such position for life.
| In your last meeting one member of
your board openly stated that he OPP
posed the resolution because he hoped
the matter would be handled as it was
during the former administration, under
which the officers of the city violated
their solemn obligations for the purpose
of licensing these illegal games, and he
| also openly stated that an agreement
was made and carried into effect where
by the gamblers were arrested at stated
times and fined, and that, in this way,
the city derived large revenue.
AS every member of your board doubt
| less knows that the officers of the city
were guilty of felony in thus licensing
| illegal games, how can you expect the
police officers fully and promptly to en-
| force the laws? / have been repeatedly
approached with this same proposition
and have in every instance declined to
| consider it.
On the 18th of January, 1896, if you
will remember, one of the members of
your board introduced an ordinance to
| license the nickel-in-the-slot machines.
On the 9th of that month sent mes
sage to your board vetoing the ordi-
nance, and the veto was sustained. But
on the 4th day of January of this year
a similar ordinance was passed by your
board, and on the 18th of January / sent
a very earnest message to your board
WI, hot y,
! ling device: that the ordinance, if
passed, would be illegal, and that the
passage of the same by you would be
unlawful. And I firmly believe that
every member of your board who voted
to pass the ordinance over my veto COM
mitted a felony and is now subject to
punishment for such and for removal
from Office, under Section 337 of the
Penal Code of California
Why the members of your board at
this time, are so anxious to pass a reso-
luton of this kind. and to appear before
the people as being in favor of suppress
ing these games, may be accounted for
by the recent charges in the Evening
Bee" because such action on your part
is so utterly at variance with your prev
ious record in these matters that it has
caused considerable surprise.
But, in this connection, I want to inn
press upon you the fact that resolutions
of this or any other kind will not sup
press these evils. If your board will
give the executive officers your honest
/ support in this direction we can suppress
all illegal games. But when you protect
poolselling and nickel-in- the-slot games,
[ H., .rn<v
than faro or other kindred games, you
must not expect the police officers to
| fully enforce the laws.
! If the Chief of Police, or any other
officer, is not performing his duty, any
member of your board can prefer char
| ges to remove him from office. But
when you assume to give them orders
I you are violating the laws yourselves,
| and until you can so constrain your
selves as to keep within the law you
cannot reasonably expect other officers
of the city fully to enforce the laws
against gaming.
In conclusion, I desire to say that l
believe that every member of your board
| is familiar with the conditions under
which these Illegal games are operated,
| and I further believe-and your action
| in protecting the booksellers convinces
me-that a large majority of your board
are opposed to the full and prompt en-
forcement of the laws against gamb-
! ling. Respectfully submitted,
c. H. HUBBARD, Mayor
Devine moved that the message re-
l2ting to gambling be referred to Mrs.
Stiles.
Kent said he would give the Mayor
a pointer as TO how to perform duties,
and read the portion Of the charter
specifying the Mayors duties. He had
read more about the gambling lately
than he had ever known before. There
was no gambling for the first six
months of the Mayors administration.
nor until the night set for Superintend-
ent Croly's trial He had at that
| time reported what he had seen to the
Mayor, but nothing had ever been done
about it, That was the time that Pen
nish had said that he had no time to
listen to such rot as was brought up at
Croly's trial.
| Pennish said he made the remark be-
cause he did not want to come night
after night to listen to such stuff.
Bentley said he introduced the reso-
luton in good faith. in order to get
some information. He did not think
the Mayor had answered the questions.
Leonard said that he did not believe
the nickel-in- the-slot ordinance was in
violation of the State law.