The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1898-04-03
TO GIVE, OR NOT TO GIVE.
CAN TRADERS LEGALLY MAKE
GIFTS TO PURCHASERS?
The Trading Stamp Ordinance Be-
ing Tested Before Justice
Davis.

With d view of testing the validity
of City Ordinance No. 419 commonly
known as the trading stamp" ordi-
nance, a complaint was yesterday lodg-
ed in the City Justice Court, charging
y. ID. Christensen with having sold
pound of apples to F. F. Atkinson,
with which he bestowed on his custo-
mer trading stamp, purporting to be
of some value. The complaint was
sworn to by NJ Fisher
But the attorneys for the Sacramento
Trading Stamp Company, Hon Henry
c. Gesford OF Napa and W. NJ. Sims
of this city, did not intend to let it APP
pear that the ordinance in question was
prohibitive of trading stamps alone. and
in the course Of the morning complaints
were fled against j. D. Busby for giving
a coupon for picture cards with a can
of mustard sold to O. S. Flint: another
against E. w. Hale, charging him with
giving an oil painting with purchase,
and a third charging j. Wilson with
presenting cuspidor to a customer
who purchased a package of coffee.
The first case was called at 1:30
o'clock, and Attorney Sims filed a mo-
ton to- dismiss on the ground that the
facts as stated in the complaint did
not constitute public offense. and that
the ordinance was unconstitutional and
void in that it conflicts with Section
of Article XIII. of the Constitution.
Mr.. Gesford spoke for two hours in
defense of the motion. He held that
the ordinance smacked of Puritanis1n
and was a reminder OF the days Of
witchcraft. 1t was an invasion of the
rights of citizens in disposing of prop
erty as they saw fit and was an I'M
just and Improper restraint on trade
Mr.. Gesford contended that no law
making body had d right to impose leg
islation on merchants which would not
allow them to offer legitimate induce
mentS to get the custom of the peo-
pie. He called attention to the fact
that Corporation Counsel James B. De-
vine had given the Board of Trustees
an unqualified opinion that the ordi-
nance was invalid He read the op:n-
ion il question.
Mr.. Gesford held that the complaint
was more in the line of an argument
to jury than a complaint. He re-
ferred to the decision of three Superior
Judges of San Francisco, sitting in
bank, in which an ordinance similar to
the one in this city was held to be
void.
Mr.. Gesford also spoke of the case
before Judge Allen of Oakland which
resulted in the defeat of the ordinance
He contended that to attack, under the
ordinance, the trading stamp man,
meant to attack every man in the city
who offered an inducement to get the
custom of the people It's language APP
piled equally to the man who gives a
shoe buttoner or a piano with the one
who gives trading stamps. He further
contended that the man who took the
trading stamp was, under the ordi-
nance, equally guilty with the one who
gave it. He quoted a number of au-
thorities bearing on the point at issue
Attorney Hiram w. Johnson replied
at length, contending that the ordi-
nance was entirely valid and proper
1t was not intended, he said, nor did
the prosecution intend. to interfere with
any legitimate means employed by
merchants to induce customers to come
to them, but was directed only at the
methods of the Trading Stamp Com
pany.
Mr.. Johnson contended that the stat
utes We're very elastic with regard to
! municipal ordinances and regulations
and cited a number of instances in
which prohibitive ordinances had been
declared valid by the Supreme Court
Among others he cited a Los Angeles
ordinance which provided that no car
pet-beating establishment would be
permitted to operate within forty feet
of any church. school or dwelling house.
The Supreme Court held the ordinance
to be within the statutes, and, there
fore, valid.
He read the decision of the Washing
ton, d. c., Appellate Court which decid-
ed that Trading Stamp Companies could
not transact business in the District of
| Columbia, and called attention to the
similarity of the Sacramento ordinance
and the one which the Federal Court
had declared to be invalid
In conclusion Mr.. johnson reiterated
that the prosecution aimed only at the
| Trading Stamp Company and had no
| intention of interfering with the
schemes of business men to increase
trade. The trading stamp business
should, he said, be prohibited. as it did
no good to anybody and preyed upon
both customer and merchant. 1t is
| Ubiquitous in it's aims and results. and
the policy Of the law ought to be broad
enough to seize it.
In his closing argument Mr. Gesford
! contended that the Los Angeles case
| cited by Attorney Johnson did not ap-
ply to the case in question In the
| former it was aimed to protect the
comfort and health Of the city. and
clearly should have been sustained by
the Supreme Court, whereas the Sacra-
niento ordinance was intended to pre-
vent man from giving away his prop
| erty or giving discount on the goods
he sold. if he so desired.
Mr.. Gesford also contended that the
! Washington case had been tried on the
facts and not on the law, while the
point in question was to be decided on
the law, and not on the facts.
When the arguments were concluded
Justice Davis took the point in ques-
ton under adyisement
FORE AND AFT.