Copyright
California Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of State.

Amendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... online

. (page 17 of 36)
Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 17 of 36)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


used in conducting, maintaining, aiding or abel
ting the nuisance, and shall direct the sale then
in the manner provided for the sale of chatti
under execution, and the effectual closing of t
building or place against its use for any pi
pose, and so keeping it closed for a period of
year, unless sooner released, as hereinafter .
vided. While such order remains in effect as
closing, such building or place shall be and
main in the custody of the court For removl
and selling the movable property, the officer sh
be entitled to charge and receive the same t
as he would for levying upon and selling 1
property on execution, and for closing the pre
ises and keeping them closed, a reasonable si
shall be allowed by the court

Sec. 8. The proceeds of the sale of the pn
erty, as provided in the preceding section, shi
be applied as follows:

1st. To the fees and costs of such remol
and sale;

2nd. To the allowances and costs of so closll
and keeping closed such building or place;



Digitized by



Google



Ird. To the payment of plain til^s costs In

rh action;

4th. The balance, if any, shall be paid to the

lier of the property so sold.

If the proceeds of such sale do not fully dis-

Irge all such costs, fees and allowances, the

id building and place shall then also be sold

der execution issued upon the order of the

irt or judge and the proceeds of such sale

fUed in like manner.

9. If the owner of the building or place
I not been guilty of any contempt of court in
» proceedings, and appears and pays all costs,
1 and allowances which are a lien on the
ding or place and tiles a bond in the full
be of the property, to be ascertained by the
Irt, with sureties, to be approved by the court
Ijudge, conditioned that he will immediately
lie any such nuisance that may exist at such
ning or place and prevent the same from be-
[established or kept thereat within a period
hue year thereafter, the court, or Judge there-
niay, if satisfied of his srood faith, order the
Tttlses, closed under the order of abatement,
I delivered to said owner, and said order 6i
ement canceled so far as the same may re-
I to said property. The release of the prop-
f under the provisions of this section shall not
ise it from any Judgment, lien, penalty or
pity to which it may be subject bv law.
c. 10. Whenever the owner of a building or
i upon which the act or acts constituting the
tmpt shall have been committed, or of any
«8t therein has been guilty of a contempt
ourt and lined therefor in any proceedings
er this act, such fine shall be a lien upon such
nlng and place to the extent of the interest
riuch person therein enforcible and collectible
Ttxecution issued by the order of the court.
Tec. 11. All acts and parts of acts in conflict
the provisions of this act are hereby re-
>d; provided, that nothing herein shall be
itrued as repealing any law for the suppres-
I of lewdness, assignation or prostitution.
'^And whereas, said regular session of the said
llslature finally adjourned May 12, 1913, and
ety days havinsr not expired since said final
Uourmnent ;

I ^ow, therefore, sufilclent qualified electors of
be State of California have presented to the
ecretary of state their petitions asking that said
»w and act hereinbefore set forth, so passed by
he legislature and approved by the governor,
8 hereinbefore stated, be submitted to the elec-
>re of the State of California for their approval
f rejection.

RGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ACT FOR ABATE-
MENT OF NUISANCES.

The Redlight Abatement Act makes invest-
ents in exploitation of prostitution insecure,
uder this act, any citizen may proceed against
house of prostitution as a nuisance. If the
lisance be proved, the house must be closed
r one year unless the owner furnishes a bond
at the house shall be used only for lawful
irposea

The act is not an experiment. Similar laws
e in force in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Neb-
slca, Utah, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minne-
ta and Kansas. Congress recently enacted,
d President Wilson signed, a similar law for
i District of Columbia.

The commission appointed by the Massachu-
ts legislature to investigate this problem says :
he laws for the suppression of 'places re-
nted to for the purpose of prostitution,' should
A^? ^or the penalizing of the property so
5d.' The committee then recommends the
^a plan of abatement The New York vice
nmittee says that "the abatement law hi
«e in Iowa would be equally effective in New
rk.'*

^ge amounts are invested in exploiting pros-
luon. The profits are enormoua



fhe fimplre Mouse at San i^Vanclsco C05?t
some $8,000.00. The seventy cribs rented at
$5.00 a night each— $350.00 a night, $127,750.00
a year. (See transactions of the Common-
wealth Club of California, Vol. VI, No. 1, page
48.) A San Francisco trust company has been
shown to have invested trust funds in a five-
story assignation house. (Report published by
San Francisco supervisors, on Causes of Munic-
ipal Corruption, 1910, pp. 18-19.) At the trial of
Mayor Schmitz, testimony was given that one of
these San Francisco houses represented an in-
vestment of $400,000.00. (Transcript, People
vs. Schmitz, p. 557.)

No blackmail or extortion has been attempted
in other states under this act "The talk about
blackmail is without merit" writes Attorney
General Cosson of Iowa, "and is circulated by
believers in segregated districta" Attorney
(General Martin of Nebraska writes: "I have
never heard of a case where this law was used
for the purpose of blackmail." District Attor-
ney Evans of Portland, Oregon, states, **Within
my knowledge the Oregon law has not been
used for the purpose of persecuting innocent
property owners nor for blackmail."

The scattering of the evil throughout the resi-
dence district would be impossible under this act,
because any citizen is given the legal machinery
to drive prostitution out Such abatement laws
in other states have not resulted in "scattera-
tion." They have, however, resulted in wiping
out the unclean profits of those who prey upon
fallen women, thereby reducing prostitution to
its minimum.

The owner who rents property for legitimate
purposes has nothing to fear from this law.
It simply requires that owners shall know as
much about the use of their property as their
neighbors know. The owner who rents property
for purposes of prostitution has much to fear.

To vote in favor of the Abatement Act mark
your ballot "Yes." Edwin E. Grant,

State Senator Nineteenth District

ARGUMENT AGAINST ACT FOR ABATE-
MENT OF NUISANCES.

The referendimi against the so-called Red
Light Abatement Law was inaugurated by prop-
erty owners of this state. It is, therefore, the
purpose of the writer to treat the subject from
the viewpoint of the property owner.

Lack of space precludes a specific analysis of
the various sections of the act; but a general
statement of the drastic provisions of the same
will enable the writer to point out how far the
authors of the bill have wandered from their
purpose.

Sections one and two of the act should be read
together. Their provisions affect the owner of
any building w>>ich may be entered through the
same outside entrance, and in which building any
act of lewdness, assignation or prostitution is
h<^ld to occur, and in that event, such building
shall be abated. It is easy to conceive how the
owner of a flat building, rooming house, apart-
ment house or hotel, or even an ofilce building,
may become the innocent victim of these sections.
and unless the owners thereof establish a censor
of morals in their buildings, they will soon be-
come the innocent victims of enthusiastic re-
formers. But one act of prostitution, assigna-
tion or lewdness In any building Is suflEicient to
cause the building to be abated.

The legislature undoubtedly intended that the
law should be directed against houses of prosti-
tution, and if the act becomes effective, naturally
the houses of prostitution will close without court
proceedinga The obvious result will be that the
women who ply that business will seek other

Fiftj-OIM



i



places for their abode. It will, therefore, become
impossible for the owner of property to deter-
mine when renting his property, the character
of those desiring to become his tenants, and no
matter how straight-laced the owner of residence •
property may be, he will sooner or later become
the landlord of an unfortunate woman. It is
well to bear in mind that but one act of prosti-
tution, assignation or lewdness in any building
with a common entrance is suflacient to have the
building abated or enjoined.

Sections 7 to 10 of the act are the property-
destroying clauses thereof. Substantially they
provide that if the existence of a nuisance be es-
tablished, a judgment of abatement shall be en-
tered as a part of the judgment in the case.
Thereupon all the movable fixtures and property



in any building sought out for attack are to be
removed, and the building kept closed for %
period of one year.

If the Red Light Abatement Bill becomet
effective, prostitution will not be abated not
minimized, but property will be abated, and iti
value impaired. The property owner and hH
respectable tenant will pay the price of this ae|
of the legrislature ; but, lrre^)ective of that, tin
prostitute will go merrily on, plying her trad^
as she has plied it from the beginning, and a citi
zen will always be doubtful as to the charactti
of the person in the house next door.

George Appell,

Attorney Property Owners' Protective Asso-
ciation of California.



NON-SALE OF GAME.

Act amending Penal Code section 626k, submitted to electors by referendum.

Declares the buying, selling, shipping, offering or exposing for sale, trade or shipment, of aq
wild game, bird, or animal (except rabbits and wild geese), protected by law and mentioned!
part I, title XV, chapter I of Penal Code, or the dead body of the same, or any part thereof,
misdemeanor; prescribes punishment therefor; and declares section does not prohibit sale c
wild duck from November 1st to December 1st of same year.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF NON-SALE (A
GAME ACT.



Whereas, the legislature of the State of Cali-
fornia, in regular session in May, 1913, passed,
and the governor of the State of California, on
the 16th day of June, 1913, approved a certain
law and act, which law and act, together with
its title, is in the words and figures following,
to wit:

An act to amend section 626k of the Penal Code
of the State of California, relating to the sale
of wild game or the dead bodies thereof.
The people of the State of California do enact
as follows:

Section 1. Section 626k of the Penal Code
is hereby amended to read as follows:

626k. Every person who buys, sells, ships,
offers, or exposes for sale, barter, trade or ship-
ment, any wild game, bird, or animal, except
rabbits and wild geese, protected by law and
mentioned in part one, title fifteen, chapter one,
of this code, or the dead body of any such game,
bird, or animal, or any part thereof, whether
taken or killed in the State of California or
shipped into the state from another state, terri-
tory, or foreign country, is guilty of a misde-
meanor and upon conviction thereof shall be
punished by a fine not less than twenty dollars
nor more than five hundred dollars, or imprison-
ment in the county jail of the county in which
the conviction shall be had, not less than twenty
days nor more than six months, or by both
such fine and imprisonment ; and all fines and
forfeitures imposed and collected for violation
of any of the provisions of this section shall be
paid into the state treasury to the credit of the
fish and game preservation fund. Nothing in
this section shall be construed to prohibit the
sale of any species of wild duck from the first
day of November to the first day of December
of the same year.

And whereas, said regular session of the said
legislature finally adjourned May 12, 1913, and
ninety days having not expired since said final
adjournment ;

Now, therefore, sufficient qualified electors of
the State of California have presented to the
secretary of state their petitions asking that
said law and act hereinbefore set forth, so
passed by the legislature and approved by the
governor as hereinbefore stated, be submitted
to the electors of the State of California for
their approval or rejection,
lifty-two



The market hunter has caused the enacting
of legislation for the protection of the wild lift
from extermination In forty-seven states of thi
union. Why?

First — The larger species of wild game,
as the buffalo, elk and antelope, first fell prej
to his deadly work, and these in turn were f(4
lowed by the passenger pigeon. As a corm
quence these species have become so scan
that he has turned his attention to netting an
snaring even our song birds. They have be«(
found by the thousands in cold storage by th
authorities.

Second — Elimination of the market hunter ij
not a new idea. It is his deadly slaughter thai
has brought to the people a realization that hi
is merely a reaper. He sows nothing, in
per cent of instances is not a taxpayer, is ai
avowed violator of all limit laws which are ba«i
upon equity. His limit is his stock of amm*
nition, his trail can be easily followed through
every state by the attendant depletion of ever
available form of wild life, and he is the fatW
of open and unrestricted, wanton and cruel d(
struction.

Third — The market hunter kills for the mal
ket a greater pro rata of wild game than do aj
of the 163,000 men, women and children wh
provide the total fund for the protection a
game. The taxpayers of the state at large 4
not have to contribute one cent for the protec
tion of game; for it Is not a direct tax upffl
the people, being provided entirely by tho^
who hunt and fish.

Fourth — ^With the passing of the marke
hunter the great mass of hunters will have ai
opportunity to shoot upon the vast areas bi
now monopolizes, and where he has carried o!
his slaughter of hundreds of thousands of oui
migratory waterfowl and other birds.

Fifth — Our sister states, younger in state
hood than California, have eliminated the mar
ket hunter, thereby perpetuating the supply oi
waterfowl to California. Thousands of them an
bred annually throughout Oregon, "Washington
Idaho, Nevada and in the provinces of Canada,
yet they prohibit the market hunting of thj
birds and the taking of eggs. Commercial in-
terests gathered eggs by the shipload on tlK
Yukon until our own government put a stop tc



tie practice. Wh6n the egg is hatched and
rrives in California in the form of a ducic the
larket hunter immediately commercializes it.
3 that fair to our sister states and to our own
overnment?

Sixth — In proof of the statement that the
larket hunter is the sole destroyer, the figures
n duck shipments into San Francisco alone are
iven: In 1910, about 500,000; in 1911, 200,000;
a 1912, 106,000, and in 1913 but 85,000. In the
ace of these figures the market hunter and his
oworker, the commission man, have made the
tatement, "What a fine thing it would be to
eed the wild life of California to the millions
rho are coming to our fair."

Seventh — The market hunter and the com-
Qission man collected many thousands of dollars
or the referendum that means, eventually, the
otal extermination of our quail, doves, deer,
lucks, and, in fact, every member of the furred
tnd feathered tribes, even to our songbirds.

Eighth — This referendum petition was circu-
ited by the market hunter and the commission
ban, and the following figures show to what
(xtent they will go to debauch the will of the
^ple for the conservation of their wild life:
' From San Francisco county alone came peti-
ions aggregating 32,108 names. The certificate
^1 the registrar of voters on file in the office of
3ie secretary of state discloses the fact that
10,328 names did not appear on the great reg-
ister and 3,119 others were rank forgeries.
Only 18,751 of the whole 32,108 were found to
be actual, registered voters.

Voters of California, stamp a cross opposite
Ihe word "Yes" on the ballot at the right of
fte title of the amendment to section 626k, and
then you will have aligned yourself with all our
sister states in the Union who have stamped
\heir marks of disapproval upon the market
hunter and his methods. If you fail in your
luty toward your wild life you will witness its
^erlastlng destruction.

Remember that not only are your wild birds
tnd animals in danger of total extermination,
but the honor and integrity of your state is at
stake. F. M. Nbwbbrt,

President Fish and Game Commission.

Argument against non-sale of game

ACT.

Citizens are asked to support the referendum
I^etition now submitted to electors for their ap-
proval or rejection, on the law for non-sale of
game enacted by the legislature under the title
of "An act to amend section 626k of the Penal
Code," approved June 16, 1913, for the follow-
^g reasons:

I. That the act is class legislation.

II. That the law was not enacted in good faith.
■ HI. That the law Is contrary to public policy.

This act provides that no one shall ship, sell
or offer for sale, buy or trade any wild game
except rabbits and geese, with the exception
that wild ducks are permitted to be sold (note
jtte word "sold," it is Important), during the
month of November only.

First — ^Every citizen who has gone afield for
the purpose of hunting or fishing will testify
that he has found the grounds or streams open
Jo him for the enjoyment of his sport extremely
umlted. That signs which forbid trespassing,
hunting and fishing confront him on every side,
and that in the majority of cases the signs are
olsplayed by the authority of hunting and fish-
ing clubs, and that practically all the desirable
hunting and fishing grounds are under the con-
trol of such clubs.



This act was passed solely for the purpose of
preserving the wild game of the state for the
enjoyment and sport of those who are so situated
financially that they are able to be members
of the said clubs, the argument being that if
game is not allowed to be sold, the inducement
to hunt and kill it will be removed from the
greater mass of the citizens, and thus reserve
the game to the clubs, their individual members
and their friends. For the clerk, the mechanic,
and the man with a moderate Income it means
an expense that he can not afford to go hunting
for the game he wants on his table ; yet it is an
undisputed fact that the wild game of the state
belongs to all of the people, and that the poor
man has as much right to the enjoyment of a
share of it as the rich man. How can a poor
man get game if he is not allowed to buy it?

Second — ^The act provides that game shall
not be "shipped" at any season of the year, but
that wild ducks shall be permitted to be sold
during the month of November. This means
that the man who hunted and killed ducks
would not be permitted to send them to a mar-
ket or to any place where they could be sold,
by any of the ordinary means of transportation.
There is no one to buy ducks at the place
where they are killed and to get them to the
city where it would be possible to find a market
for them, the hunter would be forced to carry
them, or to provide his own means of transpor-
tation, which would make the cost so excessive
that the price would prevent a poor man from
buying them.

This law was not enacted in good faith.
While it apparently permits the sale of ducks
during a portion of the season, the joker in the
law forbidding the transportation at all seasons,
makes it Impossible to get the game to a place
where It could be sold. FHirthermore, why
should the man who is not able to go hunting
and kill his own ducks, be allowed to buy ducks
and have them on his table one month out of
the season, while another man in better financial
circumstances, able to afford the expense of
hunting, can have ducks on his table and that
of his friends, during all the open season from
October fifteenth to January thirty-first?

Third — The wild game of the state belongs
to all of the people of the state. If any or all
of the species of game which Inhabit the state
are scarce, then prohibit the hunting and kill-
ing of such game to every one alike until such
time as the supply is replenished. Most kinds
of wild game are plentiful ; the supply of wild
ducks Is especially good and this particular
game should be sold more cheaply than poultry.
The reason that It is not Is because of the
laws that have been passed from time to time,
each one of which has withdrawn some little
privilege enjoyed by the poor man, and each
law apparently of little Importance in itself, but
with all the laws, one added to another, it Is
found that the game of the state Is being more
and more reserved for those whose money per-
mits them to enjoy special privileges, at the ex-
pense of the people at large. The game of the
state, and especially the wild fowl. Is a recog-
nized asset which should assist in reducing the
added cost of living. Let each voter ask him-
self if the law which It is asked that he vote
to have repealed, helps him or helps those in
similar position to himself— does it give to him
the same advantages that it does to the privi-
leged few for whose benefit It was passed — and
then vote as his reason and his conscience dic-
tate. F. M. Bailey,

Secretary People's Fish and Game Protective
Association.

Digitized by



ABOLITION OF POLL TAX.

Initiative amendment to section 12 of article XIII of the constitution.
Provides that no poll or head tax for any purpose shall be levied or collected in this state.



The electors of the State of California hereby
propose an amendment of and to section 12 of
article XIII of the constitution of said state,
relating to poll taxes, so that the same shall
read as follows:

PROPOSED LAW.

ARTICLE Xni.

Section 12. No poll tax or head tax for any
purpose whatsoever shall be levied or collected
In the State of California.

Section 12, article XIII, proposed to be amend-
ed, now reads as follows:

EXISTINO LAW.

Section 12. The legislature 87mII provide for
the levy and collection of an annual poll tax,
of not less than two dollars, on every male in*
habitant of this state over twenty-one and under
sixty years of age, except paupers, idiots, insane
persons, and Indians not taxed. Baid tax shall
be paid into the state school fund,

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ABOLITION OF
POLL TAX.

The poll tax has been handed down from the
period when the people were classed as property
and taxed as chattels.

Originally it was a perfectly Just tax, because
it was levied on the feudal baron and paid by
him according to the number of serfs he owned.
As he was getting all the benefit from the labor
of the people under him, there was every reason
why he should contribute to the support of the
government in proportion to the number of people
he controlled, and the head tax was the best way
to determine that.

The poll tax, therefore, was simply the ap-
plication of just principles of taxation to feudal
age conditions. The feudal baron enjoyed a
privilege conferred by law and he paid into the
public treasury what the privilege was thought
to be worth.

In course of time, however, the barons man-
aged to shift the burden so that each man had
to pay his own head tax. Thus the original rea-
son for the tax ceased to exist, and it became an
injustice.

Originally a tax upon property, the poll tax
is now a tax upon persons, upon life itself.
The basic assumption remains the same as be-
fore, namely, that the right to life, like the right
to property, is a privilege granted by the state.

The poll tax is a survival of despotism and a
denial of democracy.

For these reasons nearly all civilized nations
have abolished the poll tax. The only large na-
tions that still levy that tax are: Russia, Tur-
key, Persia, China, and a rapidly decreasing num-
ber of states of our country.

In 1895 the poll tax was not recognized in
twenty states; in 1900 thirty-five states in the
union had no state poll tax.

No one attempts to defend the poll tax on
ethical grounds. Those who oppose its abolition
can not refute the demonstrated charge that the
tax is unjust and unfair and inflicts an unneces-
sary hardship on those least able to bear it.

The poll tax is not necessary for the support
of the public schools. The amount the state
school fund now derives from the poll tax will
not be lost, nor will it have to be made up by



Online LibraryCalifornia Legislative Counsel Bureau California. Secretary of StateAmendments to the Constitution and proposed statutes : with arguments ... → online text (page 17 of 36)