Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1907-08-18
ATTORNEY TALKS ON
AQUEDUCT SALOONS
"PRoVE OBJECTIONS" ADVICE OF
FREDERIcKs
Replies to Municipal Leagues Query
in Regard to the Supervisors
Action In the Matter of
Liquor Selling


pervisors, denying it's power to grant ;
petition filed by the city asking that thu
selling of liquor be prohibited within fou
miles of any camp where the workers oil
the Owens river aqueduct were en-
The letter reads as follows:
August Is, 1907.
Captain j. d. Fredericks, District At
torney, los Angeles, Cal.
Dear Sir: In the matter of the re-
fusal of the county board of super
visors to grant the request of the city
council of Los Angeles that no saloon
licenses be issued along the line of the
aqueduct during the period of con-
struction, the executive committee of
the Municipal league notes in the
newspaper reports that the reason
given by the supervisors for their re-
fusal was that such a course would
be special legislation, and hence irreg-
ular and unconstitutional.
This is, In the judgment of our peo-
pie, a matter of serious importance
on the side of economy in the aque-
! duct construction. If our own board
of supervisors allows saloons along
the aqueduct, we cannot reasonably
hope that the other counties will do
otherwise than follow suit. And If all
along the line of the aqueduct saloons
are to be located, with the limited
control of authority that will natur-
ally occur in such isolated places, it
means a vast amount of drinking of
bad liquor, countless fights and rows,
frequent lay-offs on the part of the
workmen, and an inevitable diminu-
ton in the efficiency of the workers
on the aqueduct which, even if esti-
mated at low percentage, might run
into millions of dollars.
Issue Not Moral
Although there is a distinct moral
issue involved in the maintenance of
saloons under such conditions, so far
removed from practical control of
county authority, nevertheless it is to
the financial loss that we have espe-
cially referred, because it directly
concerns every taxpayer in the city.
Realizing thus the serious import
ance of the questions involved, we de-
sire to ask you for a copy of any
opinion that has come from your office
on which the supervisors could base
their ruling that this would be special
legislation, and hence unconstitu-
tional. We assume that the board
must have had some opinion from you
on the subject, as they would no
doubt be glad to grant so reasonable
a request were it not that some legal
difficulty interposed.
We will ask you to explain, if you
will, in just what way this is special
legislation, and why it is unconstitu-
tional, and whether, in your judgment,
some practical plan to protect the
aqueduct cannot be devised by board
of supervisors anxious to follow the
wishes of the general mass of the vot-
To- Of ~ txy o,,1
the wishes also of the intelligent and
moral people of the entire county.
We shall be glad to hear from you
in full upon this topic. Respectfully
yours,
]. o. KOEPFLI, President
c. d. WILLARD, Secretary.
Fredericks Answers
Captain Fredericks reply reads:
Office of the District Attorney, Los
Angeles County.
dos Angeles Aug. IT, 1907.
The Municipal League, Mr.. J. o. Koepf1i,
President, Los Angeles, Cal.
Dear Sir: Replying to your letter of
August Is, received today, in which
you refer to the action of the board
of supervisors in granting a liquor
license in some locality near the aque-
duct work, and in which you assume
that the board had some legal opinion
from us upon which they acted, 1 will
state that the board of supervisors
has never asked this office for an
opinion in the matter This office has
not rendered any opinion in the mat
ter, either verbally or written. We
never volunteer our opinion to the
board of supervisors. When they want
our opinion they ask for it.
Until informed to the contrary re-
Gently, 1 understood that the board
granted the license referred to not on
the ground that they were bound to
do SO by law, but on the ground that
in their judgment the objections made
by the city water board were not we'll
founded.
AS to whether the board shall grant
a license to conduct a, saloon in that
or any other territory is matter en-
tirely within their jurisdiction, power
and duty, and is proceeding with
which we have no official connection.
If the board desires our opinion in the
matter 1t will be forthcoming
promptly.
Having stated that we have rem
dered no opinion in the matter, 1 pre-
sumo from the tenor of your letter
you would like to know what our
opinion would be if the matter were
presented TO us, ana L see no ODJec-
ton to informing you.
Our opinion is that they can grant
or refuse a license as seems best to
them, on the ground that the location
or person applying is or is not OBJ
jectionable.
"For Sufficient Reason"
License ordinance No. So, page 9,
says the board may refuse on the
ground, among others, THAT the pro-
posed location of said business is OBJ
jectionable, or that any rule of said
board would be violated by granting
such license, or for any other reason
deemed sufficient for such refusal,
whether shown by protests on file or
otherwise"
This, according to all decisions of
all courts, from the United States SUI
preme court down, places the power
of granting or refusing, either for
cause or without cause, absolutely in
the will of the board of supervisors.
1 need only refer to the recent case of
Reed VS.. Payne, Third Appellate Dis
trict Decisions, No. 1885, rendered May
6, 1907.
Do I make myself clear? So far as
the law is concerned the board can
refuse a license near the aqueduct
works if in their judgment the loca-
ton is Objectionable, or If the grant
ing will violate any rule of the board,
or for any other reason deemed suf-
f1cient"; and their action and judg-
ment in that particular is not review
able nv anU court