The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-12-12

propriate to be taken in the exercise
of this police power are determined by
legislative policy and for this purpose
a wide discretion is committed to the
lawmaking body. Whether it shall en-
tirely prohibit or only regulate by con-
filming such practices within prescribed
limits-whether the law shall apply to
every kind Of gambling, or only to those
games or wagers in which evil effects
appear with greatest prominence-must
be determined primarily. by the legis-
lative department of the State or of the
municipality authorized to exercise this
great power, which is conferred for the
purpose of securing the public safety
and welfare, and unless it clearly APP
pears that a statute or ordinance
ostensibly enacted for this purpose has
no real or substantial relation to these
objects, and that the fundamental
rights of the citizen are assailed under
the guise of a police regulation, the ac-
ton of that department is conclusive.
There is nothing in the language
quoted that implies that an exclusive
privilege of pool-selling, ETC.. may be
granted to particular individuals. In
already been seen, does not contain
provision that all race-tracks shall be
excepted and that pools may be sold
and books made within the Enclosures
thereof, but positively and expressly
provides that the spot or track known
as Agricultural Park shall have the
exclusive privilege of conducting such
business when races or speed contests
are being conducted therein. Is this
not granting special privileges in the
very worst form in which it can be
done? Does it not invest the owners
of Agricultural Park with the absolute
and arbitrary power of passing upon
the proposition as to who shall engage
in such business in this community?
And is this not an unauthorized delega-
ton of legislative power? 1t has been
held that the legislative body of a
municipality, in the execution of the
police power, may delegate to an Off
GER of the municipality the authority
to determine whether or not certain
acts may be performed by citizens Gin
re. F1aherty, 105 Cal, $50, and cases
cited, but it has never been held that
such authority could be delegated to
certain particular individuals who have
no connection with, and between whom
and the municipality there exists no
official privity. 1t is true that, in ex
parte futile. supra, the Supreme Court
held that, permitting pool-selling to
take place only within the Enclosures of
race-trackS was not delegation of leg
islative power Yet, as has heretofore
been seen, the ordinance in that case
made a provision for all race-courscs
within the limits of the city of San
Francisco, which enabled any citizen
having the inclination and the means,
to meet the conditions required by that
ordinance upon which he might exer-
else that calling. Here there is but
one set of individuals in whom is vested
any such right They are the Directors
of Agricultural Park or their agents.
Their consent is the condition prece-
dent provided for by this ordinance to
engage in the business of pool-selling
and book-making The Board of Trus
tees might as reasonably have named
any saloon or other public house in
this community as the exception,
and thus have given the proprietor
thereof the exclusive privilege of con-
Quoting this business. The mere fact
that it provides that the pools shall not
be sold only when races and speed con-
tests are on in Agricultural Park, in no
manner relieves the ordinance of this
objection.
1t may be further said, in reply to the
argument that this is business in it
self debasing and demoralizing, that.