The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1897-10-21
Writ Of Rabeas Corpus Denied
in the BARNARD Case.
HANFoRD MAKES HIS DECISION
The Variety House Manager Was
Violating the Law Which Prohfb-
its Employment of Women I'm
Places of Amusement Where
Liquor Is soId-No Jurisdiction.


the names which Federal Judge Hanford
used In a decision which he rendered yes
terday denying the petition of John W.
Considine. OF Spokane. for a writ OF ha-
beas corpus to secure his release from the
custody of the sheriff of Spokane county.
As Is well known, Consldine has been I'M
der fire in Spokane for long time. The
church element has been on his trail, and
every effort on the part OF the ex-Seattle
theater man and politician 10 follow his
profession has been defeated by the
good people.
Some time ago considlne was prosecuted
under a law of this state which says that
no female person shall be employed in any
capacity in any saloon, beer hall. theater
or other place of amusement where liquor
is sold as a beverage. A person convict
ed OF employing. or participating In the
employment of females at such places. is
subject to a fine OF 500 or six months i'm
prisonment, or both.
Considine was convicted in the superior
court. He appealed. and the supreme
court affirmed the decision Of the lower
court, and later refused HIM rehearing.
Then Considine asked Judge Hanford for
a writ of habeas corpus. claiming that
the state law under which he was con-
victed is repugnant TO the Fourteenth
amendment 10 the constitution OF the
United States. His legal claim was that
IN contravention Of the provisions Of the
Fourteenth amendment the state statute
does ahridge the privileges and immuni-
ties Of citizens of the United States; and
does deny TO persons within the jurlsdic-
ton OF this state the equal protection of
the laws in this. that IL deprives persons
lawfully engaged IN the liquor business OF
the privilege or right of employing women
who are competent to contract with ref
erence 70 their own services, and in this,
that II deprives women Of freedom in their
choice Of vocations. and makes IL unlaw-
ful for them TO engage IN employment
which is lawful for men.
This court" says Judge Hanford, has
no jurisdiction 20 review decisions OF the
supreme court Of the state upon questions
or procedure IN the state courts under
state laws. or questions involving the in
depreciation or application OF the provis-
Ions of the state constitution. therefore.
/ viii only say IN answer 10 the argument
Of counsel for the petitioner. as 20 those
questions. that the decision OF the su-
premc court q the state is anal and con-
elusive"
The statute under which Con5ldine was
convicted. the SQUIRT says. Is general in its
scope and applies equally 20 al persons
any sense partial o. arbitrary. 1T Was
not enacted" IS tae language OF Judge
hantord. TO do injury or work lnjus-
ice On the contrary. the lnten; OF the
legislature Is manifest 10 cneck the fem
dency towards immortality by the assocta-
ton et the sexes in places CT resort where
Intoxicating beverages are sold. ana where
the worst passions are aroused
IT IS :rae that the statute does not an
pear 10 BE aimed In the most direct man
Der ~ the cvl tendencies OF association
or the 8 xes IN drinking places. Criminal
tiy under The statute consists in the en-
ployment az female persons In such places
and x forb.as the employment Of women
tof any service. going 30 the extent OF for
Bidding the engagement OF actresses in
theatefs wherein Eduor Is sold although
the players may have nothing whatever IN
40 WIN the business OF Serving drinks.
and point IS MADE hy petitioner thar rbs
legislature has failed % touch .hN a,i1
tang for there Is no prohibition In tha
~" @&Alhst women resortiag 10 such
places. or conserving with men fharefr
Tbs criticism appears 10 be Just. ana var
i may oc said 81 defense OF the lavy ,So,
u l@s oten customary from time irnr,er,o-
ri1 Tor legislatures in suactinx new, iarrs
10 Aafe IN mind existing and Know, evils
@Aa 90 conStrcct statutes with reference
se PARTICULAR forms q wroHg-dolng which
.E~ te"@+.s attention. There can
= no a22at mat this statuta was 0,r.
WiFea because che particular rasov.s
Where N3rmR'3s and box rrst}s~s 49, -
u'ar Employment. and may Re fngrs :,
h3bltaal attendance. have orYsrsaF -
moral ssasieiites q the people. - -
Us Fe1lt the statute does nos aeye~t a.,
reformation intended & .s FER the lertsf,-
laFe 'o consider whether II viii ensrt /,
olo9e drastic law ''~'
9; ne c2astiiatloasi;y OF Law =.
Hot 10 oe tested By Questioning its -
cacF. Whcther wcl. designed :, s.-e--
N-sued ine purpose Intended o. o,sar
Nsa The hw Is police regulation a.
clearly within the police roursr =. -
s'''e which hss no, been kan avs-,. 81
e '9Tteea'h amendment Petition o.