Los Angeles herald., 1907-04-25
A PECULIAR LAW

According to a law passed by the
last legislature It Is a felony for a
non-militant to wear anything Of cloth
ing kind in the semblance Of a United
States, or National Guard, military OF
naval uniform. The adjutant general
Of California announces his determina-
tion to see that the law Is enforced.
The penalty attached to violation Of
the law is severe. 1t prescribes a fine
Of from 500 to $3.50 for each offense,
or imprisonment or both
Along with the intimation that the
adjutant general will at once see to
the enforcement of the new law we
note decision by the presiding judge
Of Rhode Islands superior court that
may have a bearing on the constitu-
tionality of the California law under
consideration, The Rhode Island case
was that of United States marine
who was excluded from a dance in
Newport because his uniform was not
considered au fait.
The Rhode Island court held that 1.-THE
WedEeI VI Il OIllNtu Dldltb uilAAOAllA 10
in no different position legally from
one who is excluded because he is not
in evening dress or for any other
reason" This case attained peculiar
interest because President Roosevelt
sent his check for S10O to help pay the
cost Of prosecuting the dance hall pro-
prietor for his indignity toward the
United States uniform.
1t is the sweeping character of the
California law in question that sug-
gests the possibility of constitutional
conflict in the light Of the Rhode Island
decision. 1t covers, as reported, mil
itary academies. the Salvation Army,
fraternal organizations, street car con-
ductors, bell boys, bands, bank mes
sengers," and all others who wear
clothes at all resembling the soldier
uniform. 1t is said that it will even
include bartenders who wear blue
coats trimmed with braid, bell-hops at
the hotels who wear suggestions of
army uniforms and also hunters and
campers who affect khaki suits in the
similitude of soldier clothes.
The American uniform, whether of
the United States army or navy or OF
the National Guard, is entitled to the
same consideration and respect that
attach to the national flag. The gov
ernment protects both the flag and the
uniform abroad from indignity and in
suit, and surely as great protection is
demanded at home
But it seems to detract from the
respect thus imposed to assume that
a bell-hop, a bartender, messenger
boy or a car conductor insults the
uniform by wearing the peculiar tog-
gerry which distinguishes his calling.
There is certainly no danger that any
such person will be mistaken for a
soldier.
AS Pope puts the distinction, Worth
makes the man and want of it the
fellow; the rest is all but leather or
prunella.'
It would be an unquestionable and
seemingly meaningless hardship to
oblige fraternal organizations and all
other interests affected to dispense with
their present styles Of attire because
of an extremely remote similarity to
the American uniform. Carried to the
length which the law covers the whole
proposition borders closely upon the
ludicrous.
In regard to the constitutional aspect
eli
appears to be apropos. If the United
States uniform carries with it no rights
that dance hall proprietor is bound
to respect how can it be a criminal
offense to infringe upon that uniform
as remotely as is done by the barkeep