Los Angeles herald., 1909-12-28
DANCE HALL LAW
DECLARED VALID
RESORT PROPRIETOR LOSES
INJUNCTION CASE
JUDGE HUTTON SUSTAlNS DE.
MURRER OF CITY
Court Holds Plaintiff Did Not File
Referendum Petition Within Time
Required by City Charter
TO Be Effective

The dance hall ordinance, adopted
by the city council October >, 1909 is
valid. This is the opinion of Judge
George II. Hutton of the superior court,
rendered yesterday in the suit of F. II.
Solomon against Mayor Alexander and
the police department by which it was
sought to enjoin the officers of the
city Of Los Angeles from enforcing the
ordinance.
Judge Hutton disposed of the suit
by sustaining a demurrer presented by
City Attorney Hewitt, the latter raising
the single question; WAS the reteren-
dunn petition filed in timer
In his complaint solomon raised the
following four points: The ordinance
was adopted by the city council Oc-
tober 3: it was signed by the mayor
October 16: it was published in the
official newspaper october 10 and the
referendum petition, pursuant TO the
provisions of the city charter, was
filed November 16.
1t was contended by Solomon's at
torneys the thirty days allowed in
which a referendum petition might be
filed began at the time the ordinance
was first published and not on the
dav H. was signed by the mayor, but
the court holds that the wording of the
charter does not permit of this pre-
sumption.
Judge Hutton's opinion is, in part,
as follows:
Courts Opinion
The particular language of the
! charter in controversy here is that
portion which provides that the or
dinance passed by ,the city council
shall go into effect before the thirty
DAYS from the time of its final pas
sage and its approval by the mayor
and farther provides that during said
thirty day period a referendum may
be filed and if so filed within said
thirty-day period such ordinances
shall not be operative and may not be
enforced until it has been submitted
to the people at an election and APP
| proved by them
plaintiff admits the obvious truth
his petition filed November 16 was not
filed in time if the thirty-day period
begins to run with the approval of the
mayor but contends the manifest in
| tent Of the charter provision in that
| the thirty-day period begins to run
when the ordinance is published in the
official newspaper. If this contention
be true. then the referendum petition
was filed in time and serves to stay
the enforcement of the ordinance.
Sets Forth Plaintiffs Position
Counsel for plaintiff vigorously
urges this position on the ground that
! such a construction is necessary to
! give effect to the manifest intent of
| the charter provision, and argues If the
court should hold the charter means
what it appears to say, namely, that
! the thirty-day period begins to run
when it is signed by the mayor, such
] j lou. 1Nh of
| erendum clause of the charter ineffect-
! nal at the very time when the citizens
would most need it's protection, namely.
when there might be a mayor so lost
! to anv sense of decency and civic
| virtue as to sign an ordinance obnoX-
| iCus to the best interests of the people
and cause the same to be pigeon-holcd
and thereby to keep all knowledge Of
| its signing and approval from the
public until SO much Of the thiry-day
period had expired as to render the
preparation and signing of the referen-
| dunn petition a physical impossibility
and thus deprive the people of the ben
eft of the referendum, at the very time
they need it the most.
Court Must Not Presume
"rhe logic of this petition would
be irresistible if we presumed mayor
so lost to any sense OF decehcy ana
civic virtue as to measure up to the
picture conjured by the plaintiff, but
courts have no right to indulge in such
violent presumptions
THE people elect the mayor and
the people adopted the charter, and
this court must assume when the pc
culiar wording of the charter was
a&opted by the people they did so in
the confident belief they would never
elect mayor so lost to the sense of
honor as to stoop to do an act as rep
rehensible as the one indicated by the
plaintiff.
"If the people should ever lose CON
hdence in their own ability to elect
as mayor man of the high moral
standing contemplated i'm their charter,
then it is for the people who made
the charter to amend it and not for