DIVISION XHRE^e; — BRAINS. 249 



arrests should be made for the furnishing of wine or beer with meals at the 

 Carlton hotel. This was all and the only "concession" ever made or agreed 

 upon in regard to this matter, although contrary assertions were publicly 

 made through all the years later by parties seeking to break down the law ; 

 for this special agreement was not made public at the time, being only 

 known to those present and a few others who happened to be in some way 

 personally interested in it. It should be noted that this was on February 

 19, 1887 ; and it was not until October 31 — nearly nine months later — that 

 the California Supreme Court decision was rendered, fully sustaining the 

 ordinance just as it read when passed. And then, December 5, of same 

 year, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the celebra- 

 ted Kansas cases, sustaining most explicitly and to the fullest extent every 

 point of prohibition. contained in the Pasadena ordinance.* 



The committee urged the immediate passage of the ordinance, because 

 they had knowledge of three additional saloons already planned for in 

 Pasadena, and it was earnestly desired to let these parties know that if they 

 did start such places they were buying a law suit in advance. But objection 

 was raised that K. I. Campbell already had a license from the city which 

 did not expire until May i , — over two months yet ; and if the ordinance was 

 passed now, he could sue the city for breach of contract, loss of trade, de- 

 preciation of property, etc., and recover damages from the city — [for the 

 "compensation" doctrine was now boldly affirmed by the liquor interest 

 everywhere, although it was completely overruled by the United States 

 Supreme Court, December 5, 1887. ]t However, the council was finally 

 prevailed upon to pass the ordinance, but have it not take effect until 6 

 o'clock A. M. on the first Monday in May, as Campbell's license would then 

 have expired. So this was done, and the three new saloon projects were 

 thus headed off. 



When the ordinance went on record as duly and lawfully enacted, little 

 Pasadena had boldly bearded the great whisky lion of California in his den ; 

 and soon the air was full of ominous growlings, and threats of what direful 

 things would happen to the youthful city. The newspaper articles and 

 other documents on the subject would make a law-library volume of them- 

 selves. The law's delays and uncertainties from the time of enactment of 

 [the ordinance in February till the decision upon it by the Supreme Court on 

 'October 31, gave an open field for controversy ; and the chairman of the 

 committee found it necessary every two or three weeks to publish a report 

 of the progress being made, in order to satisfy the friends of the ordinance, 

 and to keep some from being disheartened by the confusing fallacies, soph- 



*See Mugler vs. State of Kansas, printed in Supreme Court Reporter Vol. 8, No. 10, January 23, 

 i888. Pages 273 to 306. 



tThe Pasadena Star of December 17, 1887, took issue with the U. S Supreme Court on this matter, 

 just as every liquor trade journal throughout the United States had done ; and the editor boasted that he 

 had maintained the "compensation" doctrine in Iowa, as he did also now, in spite of the contrary 

 rulings of both State and United States Supreme Courts. 



