The San Francisco call., 1899-05-09


u prohibiting poolselling and book
making on horseracing and dog
racing is unconstitutional. The deci-
sion of Justice of the Peace Groezinger
is viewed by public officials-iudicial.
police and eXecutive-with condemna-
ton and laughter. The extraordinary
act of the Justice is looked upon more
as a preposterous joke than otherwise
and the general opinion is that no Sc
rious evil will result to the community
from the absurd court proceedings of
yesterday afternoon. The affair reaches
such a height of absurdity as to mean
that Groezinger, by his decision" has
declared illegal and unconstitutional
every ordinance adopted by the Super
visors of San Francisco in the last
twenty years.
The ordinance prohibiting poolselling
and bookmaking became law by iden-
tically the same process as have all the
other municipal ordinances adopted in
this city in two decades. These ordi-
nances have the approving stamp of
the Superior Court and of the Supreme
Court of the State, which tribunals
Justice of the Peace Groezinger calmly
eN''AN'1S
lawyers of California have exercised
every ingenuity and artifice of their
craft to destroy these ordinances, but
failure met every effort.
1t should be understood that Justice
of the Peace Groezinger has not de-
clared the anti-bookmaking ordinance
unconstitutional on the ground that it
abridges or violates any constitutional
rights of individuals or corporations,
nor that the Supervisors have AFRO
gated an authority not granted by the
laws of the city and State. These prob
lens Groezinger has not ventured TO
discuss. He simply decided that the
prohibiting ordinance was not adopted
under a certain prescribed form and IS
therefore unconstitutional.
Yet the prohibitory ordinance was
adopted in precisely the same way as
all others which have stood every legal
test. There is consequently no concern
in the minds of the local authorities
over the result of Justice Groezinger's
action. The bookmakers of Ingleside
will not resume their nefarious bust
ness and the poolrooms will not re-
open. The absurdity of Groezinger's
fact that the court in which he tenn
porarily presides is not court of rec
ord. and possesses no jurisdiction to
test the constitutionality of a munich
pal ordinance. In addition to this
Groezinger is simply an acting Police
Judge temporarily clothed with the
authority of such an official.
The incident which excited Justice
Groezinger's decision yesterday after
noon was the second trial of ii. l..
Jones, one Of the gamblers OF lngle-
side. Jones attorney contended that
the records of the adoption of the anti
bookmaking ordinance by the Super
visors do not conform to the provisions
named in the consolidation act and,
further than that, they have been mu
tilated. 1t is hardly necessary to say
more in answer to these contentious
than that John A. Russell clerk of the
Board of Supervisors, and not only the
greatest local authority but acknowl-
edgedly the greatest authority in mu-
nicipal affairs in the United States,
made the records and stands ready to
establish their absolute conformity to
the law.
But Justice Of the Peace Groezinger
listened to the bookmaker's lawyer, re-
fused positively to give the prose-
cutting attorney time to reply and out
of hand declared the anti-bookmaking
ordinance unconstitutional. Having
done that he at once ordered the jury
to acquit the defendant. The gamblers
attorney, jubilant over his ready and
easily won success, asked GroeZinger
to dismiss the charges against the
other defendants similarly accused.
The Justice pondered, hesitated and
then took the matter under advise
ment He was not ready to accept his
own decision.
There was a genuine surprise in store
for the people who crowded Groezin-
gers courtroom yesterday afternoon to
near the second trial of the case of H.
L. Jones.
The acting Judge took upon himself,
as indicated, the responsibility of de-
claring that the ordinance is unconsti-
tutional on a technicality and ordering
the jury to bring in a verdict of ac-
quittal, against the protests of Prose-
cutting Attorney Carpenter and al
though Groezinger knew that Judge
Murasky has the same points under
advisement.
The jury had been selected Saturday
afternoon, and when the case was called
yesterday afternoon M. j. Bohannon,
one of the jurors, did not appear. After
waiting for half an hour both sides
agreed to try the case with the eleven
jurors. Attorney Ach at once, for the
defendant. moved for a dismissal as
the complaint was defective, inasmuch
as it did not state a public offense. The
motion was denied.
Clerk Russell of the Board of Super
visors was the first witness called to
the stand. He identified a copy of the
ordinance passed by the board, and
against Ach's objection it was admit
ted as evidence. He produced the min
ute books of the board and read the
minutes referring to the introduction
and passage of the ordinance on March
and 49,
In cross examination by Attorney
Ach, Clerk Russell admitted that he
had considered the suggestions or OBJ
jections of Ach before Judge Murasky
we'll taken and he had made certain
alterations in the minutes since April
25. Ach submitted extracts of the min
utes of the meetings of March and
13 and Clerk Russell left the stand.
Attorney Ach at once moved that the
case be dismissed on the broad ground
that there is legally no ordinance.
Prosecuting Attorney Carpenter sug-
gested that the jury be asked to retire
during the argument, and it was SO or
dered. Ach then took the ground that
i.