Los Angeles herald., 1905-05-17
ABSURD|T|ES Of
NO-SALOON LAW
PERSONAL LIBERTY WOULD BE
ABOLISHED
RIDICULOUS RESTRICTIONS
An Effort to Control Personal Con-
duct In the Home and Club as
to Character Of
Drink
RIDICULOUS RESTRICTIONS

JnOuSandS OIL people VINO are against
the prohibition ordinance to be voted
on next month to be quoted as opposing
the program of DIR. Chapman and his
forces. One of the leading members of
the Los Angeles bar and power in the
Republican party yesterday discussed
the ordinance which is to be submitted.
"The strongest argument that should
be used against the prohibition ordi-
nance Is the ordinance ITSELF" he said.
II do not question It's constitutionality.
If the ordinance carries it will be law,
and we shall all have to submit unless
we are law breakers. Such legislation
comes plainly within the meaning of
the words police regulations which
city councils are empowered by the
constitution to frame and enforce. But
will be an incentive to law breaking
and as such it is to be deplored.
No Individual Liberty
1.-THE scope of the ordinance is much
wider than most people have any idea
of, and to my mind the most important
part il, the closing of the saloons. That
is bad enough, for 1t simply means
taking the liquor traffic out of the day
light into the dark. But the provisions
of the ordinance are so drastic that
the liberty of the individual will be
seriously interfered with.
"Section 2 is about as comprehensive
as it possibly could be made. 1t reads:
1t shall be unlawful for any person, firm,
corporation or association to sell, keep. for
or give away within the city of Los Angeles
any spurious, vinous, malt or mixed liquors,
or any alcoholic or Intoxicating drinks.
"The first exception to this drastic
provision is the serving of liquors to
any person by himself, his family or his
guests at his own private table in his
1t might even be contended that man
has to own his own home before he can
serve liquor therein. Certainly this
would prevent residences of boarding
houses from using liquor, except under
the provisions of another section, upon
the written prescription of physician
Imagine the sensations of tourist who
is informed that he cannot have bot
tie of claret or beer with his dinner in
private boarding house, unless he can
produce a doctors certificate.
Futile and Foolish
But, as it seems to me, the most
futile and foolish provision Of the pro-
posed ordinance is contained in section
A =, nf iy,
bona fide restaurants, hotels or clubs,
except in the main dining rooms. 1t
will be lawful to serve liquor in the
main dining rooms of these establish
ments, but unlawful in a private dining
room or any other part of hotel ex-
oept the main dining room. This surely
is so ridiculous regulation that it
needs little comment. 1t will make it
illegal to give private dinner at which
wines are served, except in the main
dining room. Some restaurants, most
hotels and clubs have two or more din
ing rooms, but they will be allowed to
serve liquors in only one of these; the
hotel owners and the club men will
have to decide which is their main
dining room.
All Clubs Restricted
1.-The proposed ordinance will revolu-
tionize the idea that a man has the
same personal liberty in his club as
in his home. L doubt if many club men
have realized that this same section
four puts the clubs in precisely the
same category as the restaurants and
the hotels, except that the term gen
eral public in the latter Is modified to
members and their guests in the
clubs Under the ordinance no liquors
can be served in club except in the
main dining room with or as part of
bona fide meal. The meal, by the
slice of cold beef and bottle of beer,
he cannot legally have it. The trainers
of the ordinance seem to have been at
considerable pains to define bona fide
restaurants, hotels and clubs: Such
places must be fully equipped with
modern appliances for cooking and
preparing warm meals and must be
place where bona tide hot meals are
served at least three time a day and
six days in the week This seems a
curious illogical distinction between
warm and hot
No Annual Banquets
LAS a sample of the absurdities that
this ordinance would beget, think OF
the chamber of commences annual
banquet! This function is so large that
no main dining room of any hotel or
restaurant can accommodate the BAN
queters. Therefore 1t Is held each year
in some public hall. No liquor could be
served at this banquet. If any one at
the board desired a bottle of wine he
would have TO take his bottle with him.
Furthermore it would be a violation of
Section two of the ordinance II he
filled his neighbor's glass. The picture
of blue coated officers of the law ar
resting banqueters who passed their
bottles to their neighbors, seems start
IL -.