OCR Text |
Show ' IS THAT ORDINANCE VALID? i . An Argument hy Rawlins That Shows Up the City's "Crusade" "" in Its True Light. The case as to the validity of the ordinance ordi-nance under which the recent arrests for lewd and lascivious conduct were nd$ came up in the Third District Court this morning. Inside the bar were the leading lead-ing lawyers of the city, besides the counsel coun-sel in the case, which included the. firm of Williams & Young and City Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Moyle, for i he city, and Sheeks & Rawlins for the petitioner, Vandercook. In the hall outside of the rail a large crowd of spectators was present, pres-ent, many of whom probably were justified justi-fied in thinking themselves particularly interested in this test case. Mr. Joseph L. Rawlins began the argument argu-ment by reading the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, the warrant upon which Mr. Vandercook was arrested, the complaint com-plaint on which the warrant was issued, and the ordinance under which this arrest was made. This ordinance provides for the punishment punish-ment of lewd and lascivious conduct and prostitution within the limits of the city, but is broad enough to cover the relations rela-tions between husband and wife; it is also APPLICABLE TO MALE A"D FEMALE ALIKE. All parties connected with the offense are equally liable. The ordinance relating to various misdemeanors mis-demeanors within the limits of the citv empowers the corporation to restrain games of chance, bawdy nouses and other, disorderly places, and to punish the keepers thereof; to restrain re-strain and punish streetwalkers, beggars and mendicants. It does not refer to the mere single act of a person who is not defined as a prostitute. The law clearly, and in unambiguous terms, defines the powers of the corporation and the punishment of crimes within the charge. The law authorizes the punishment punish-ment of prostitutes and the keepers of houses of prostitution. The section also provides for the peace, happiness and safety of the people within the corporation, corpora-tion, but does not refer to morality in the least. THE QUESTION FOR DECISION Is whether the city has the power, under the ordinance, to punish for adultery and fornication. Any reasonable doubt as to the powers of the corporation is resolved against the corporation. The Supreme Court of the United States has 60 decided. This decision brings the matter to the very verge. The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another thing. The Legislature has given the city power to punish prostitution, but is dumb on matters regarding general morality, or the restraining of adultery and fornication. fornica-tion. When the Legislature gives the ; power to punish prostitution, the power to restrain and punish adultery and fornication for-nication is excluded unless otherwise provided pro-vided for. Webster and the law dictionaries diction-aries define prostitution. No ordinance can enlarge or diminish its powers. In 1876 an act defining and providing punishment for a series of crimes, including in-cluding prostitution, fornication and adultery, WAS REPEALED BY THE LEGISLATCEE. It was in operation when the. present charter and ordinance were under which this acion is brought. The Legislature not only repealed that act, but did not substitute anything in its stead. It then declared the policy of the Territory re- I garding adultery and other crimes against ciiasuty, and that these crimes could not be punished by the municipalities in this Territory. The laws must be uniform and enforced impartially. im-partially. The history of this Territory repels the idea that the city lias the power to punish crimes of this character. The specific rules of the corporation must not controvert the general laws of the State. - j THE LAWS OF THE STATE OPERATE IN THE j CORPORATION j As well as elsewhere, unless otherwise provided. A statute that appears on the statute book is presumed to be valid, but there is no such reference as to ordinances. ordin-ances. There is nothing here, strain it as you will, which grants the power to punish pun-ish this offense. Distort language as you may, there is nothing in this ordinance ordin-ance that expresses the power to punish a violation of chastity. The Supreme Court holds the officer a criminal who undertakes to serve a warrant by virtue of such an ordinance. : Speculation, BLACKMAIL AND FRAUD HAVE DEVELOPED In the course of actions of this kind. This ordinance is so much waste paper. There are causes why a municipality should not I compel a man to vindicate his character. itie police court is summary. It is before be-fore a grand jury and a jury of his peers that a man should be called in defense of his character. This ordinance ordi-nance makes it impossible for a man to defend his good name. It is monstrous absurd. It is not in the interest of sound morality and good law that this matter has been taken up. It is not to protect the young from the allurements of wicked women, but shows the policy to be to drag unsuspecting citizens into " TRAPS TO DESTROY THEIR GOOD NAMES. At the close of Mr. Rawlins' argument, which was not only profound, but particularly partic-ularly eloquent, at the close, the Court drew the attention of counsel to a section of the ordinance referring to bathing within the city limits. The discussion this afternoon was devoted de-voted to the section to which the Court called attention at the close of the morning morn-ing session. . Mr. Rawlins maintained that the section sec-tion had reference to indecent public exposure, and not to acts that are private. He quoted authorities to show that obscenity ob-scenity had no connection with acta -com- mitted out of the public gaze. Mr. Williams commenced the argument argu-ment in behalf of the city. He first took up the question last sprung in reference to the meaning and application of the word obscene. . He took a different view of the meaning of the word and considered that it did have a direct di-rect bearing on the acts of people committed where the public eye could not behold. He cited authorities on the subject, and made several illustrations to make his position plain. Mr. Williams then took up the main line of the discussion as to iil THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDINANCE In question, and the authority of its en- i ! forcement. ' " j There was the usual large crowd of j spectators in attendance, and the cae which is clearly a test case as to the iwwer of the city under its present charter I to prosecute in such instances appeals i to be of the deepest interest, not onlv to i many individuals, but the gener.'l public ; ' therefore the decision of Judge Zane will j lw? awaited with much anxiety. " j |