The record-union., 1898-04-09
TRADING STAMP ORDINANCE.
JUSTICE DAVIS HOLDS 1T rs
UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
The Case Will Probably be APP
pealed to the Higher Courts
for Decision.

City Justice George G.. Davis has de-
cided that city ordinance No. 4I9, COM
monty known as the Trading Stamp
ordinance" is unconstitutional and in
valid
For the purpose of testing the valdi-
ty of the ordinance A D. Christianson
was arrested several days ago, charged
with selling a pound of apples and
giving Herewith a trading stamp pur-
porting to be of some value. Hiram
w. Johnson and City Attorney A. A.
de Ligne appeared for the people, and
Henry c. Gesford of Napa and w. NJ.
Sims of this city represented the Trad
ing Stamp Company.
The attorneys for the latter moved
to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that it confiicted with Section 13 of
Article l. of the Constitution, and on
other minor points. The motion was
argued at considerable length, and a
great many authorities were cited.
Justice Davis expected to give his
decision in the matter this morning,
but owing to the fact that domestic
affairs would require his presence in
San Francisco at that time he handed
in his opinion yesterday The full text
is as follows:
I'm the Justice Court, City of Sacra-
mento, County of Sacramento, State of
California-The People, etc, VS. A. D.
Christianson.
The defendant is arrested for the
violation of what is known as ordinance
No. 419 of the city of Sacramento. COM
monty known as the Trading Stamp
ordinance. The defendant moves to
dismiss the complaint in the action up
on the ground that it is unconstitution-
al and invalid, in this: That it is re-
pugnant to Section 13 of Article 1. OF
the Constitution of the State of Cali
fornia, which provides No one shall
be deprived of life liberty or property
without due process of law and cites
numerous authorities in support of his
position in the matter.
The prosecution maintains that the
| ordinance is authorized by Subdivision
42 of Section % of Article II. of the
| charter of the city of Sacramento
which empowers the Board of Trus-
tees to pass such local, police, sani-
| tary, and other regulations as are not
in conflict with general laws or of the
provisions of this charter, and also
| cites numerous authorities in support
| of that contention.
THE contestants in this action have
| seen fit to test the legality of this or
! dinance in this court, and therefore
| have no other alternative than to give
| my own construction of the law bear
| ing upon this matter and decide ac-
| cordingly, as / understand it, 1t is the
| duty of all courts to uphold the va
/ lidity of all legislative Acts, municipal
ordinances and so forth, if it is posi-
BILE to do so, and in the case of g
| doubt it is the duty of the court tC
resolve that doubt in favor of the Act
But where an ordinance is so clear.
/ ly unreasonable and oppressive, thai
upon the face of it it appears to be
an invasion of the rights of persons
and the deprivation of their rights OF
| property without due process of law
| it is the duty of the court to squelct
| it at its very inception.
Il have carefully examined all of the
/ authorities which have been presented
/ to me in this matter and l must hold
! that the said ordinance is too broaC
! and sweeping, and is subversive OF
! those inalienable rights which are Civ
! en- to our citizens b. virtue of the
| Constitution, and l do not believe that
it is a fair and impartial exercise OF
the police regulation which the Legis-
| lature is authorized to pass, and is in
direct conflict with Section 13 of Arti-
| Gle ]. of the Constitution of the State
| of California. The motion to dismiss
the complaint is hereby granted