3rd. To the payment of plaintiff's costs in such action;

4th. The balance, if any, shall be paid to the owner of the property so sold.

If the proceeds of such sale do not fully discharge all such costs, fees and allowances, the said building and place shall then also be sold under execution issued upon the order of the court or judge and the proceeds of such sale applied in like manner.

Sec. 9. If the owner of the building or place has not been guilty of any contempt of court in the proceedings, and appears and pays all costs, fees and allowances which are a lien on the building or place and files a bond in the full value of the property, to be ascertained by the court, with sureties, to be approved by the court or judge, conditioned that he will immediately abate any such nuisance that may exist at such building or place and prevent the same from being established or kept thereat within a period of one year thereafter, the court, or judge thereof, may, if satisfied of his good faith, order the premises, closed under the order of abatement, to be delivered to said owner, and said order of abatement canceled so far as the same may relate to said property. The release of the property under the provisions of this section shall not release it from any judgment, lien, penalty or liability to which it may be subject by law.

Sec. 10. Whenever the owner of a building or place upon which the act or acts constituting the contempt shall have been committed, or of any interest therein has been guilty of a contempt of court and fined therefor in any proceedings under this act, such fine shall be a lien upon such building and place to the extent of the interest of such person therein enforcible and collectible by execution issued by the order of the court.

Sec. 11. All acts and parts of acts in conflict with the provisions of this act are hereby repealed; provided, that nothing herein shall be construed as repealing any law for the suppression of lewdness, assignation or prostitution.

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.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF ACT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES.

The Redlight Abatement Act makes investments in exploitation of prostitution insecure. Under this act, any citizen may proceed against a house of prostitution as a nuisance. If the nuisance be proved, the house must be closed for one year unless the owner furnishes a bond that the house shall be used only for lawful purposes.

The act is not an experiment. Similar laws are in force in Oregon, Washington, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota and Kansas. Congress recently enacted, and President Wilson signed, a similar law for the District of Columbia.

The commission appointed by the Massachusetts legislature to investigate this problem says: "The laws for the suppression of 'places resorted to for the purpose of prostitution,' should provide for the penalizing of the property so used." The committee then recommends the Iowa plan of abatement. The New York vice committee says that "the abatement law in force in Iowa would be equally effective in New York."

Large amounts are invested in exploiting prostitution. The profits are enormous.

The Empire House at San Francisco cost some $8,000.00. The seventy cribs rented at $5.00 a night each-$350.00 a night, $127,750.00 а year. (See transactions of the Commonwealth Club of California, Vol. VI, No. 1, page 48.) A San Francisco trust company has been shown to have invested trust funds in a fivestory assignation house. (Report published by San Francisco supervisors, on Causes of Municipal Corruption, 1910, pp. 18-19.) At the trial of Mayor Schmitz, testimony was given that one of these San Francisco houses represented an investment 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 districts." Attorney General Martin of Nebraska writes: "I have never heard of a case where this law was used for the purpose of blackmail." District Attorney 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 residence 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 "scatteration." 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 ABATEMENT OF NUISANCES.

The referendum against the so-called Red Light Abatement Law was inaugurated by property 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 which may be entered through the same outside entrance, and in which building any act of lewdness, assignation or prostitution is held 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, apartment house or hotel, or even an office 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 become the innocent victims of enthusiastic formers. But one act of prostitution, assignation or lewdness in any building is sufficient to cause the building to be abated.

re

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

places for their abode. It will, therefore, become impossible for the owner of property to determine 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 prostitution, assignation or lewdness in any building with a common entrance is sufficient to have the building abated or enjoined.

Sections 7 to 10 of the act are the propertydestroying clauses thereof. Substantially they provide that if the existence of a nuisance be established, a judgment of abatement shall be entered 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 a period of one year.

If the Red Light Abatement Bill becomes effective, prostitution will not be abated nor minimized, but property will be abated, and its value impaired. The property owner and his respectable tenant will pay the price of this act of the legislature; but, irrespective of that, the prostitute will go merrily on, plying her trade as she has plied it from the beginning, and a citi zen will always be doubtful as to the character of the person in the house next door.

GEORGE APPELL,

Attorney Property Owners' Protective Association of California.

WHEREAS, the legislature of the State of California, 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 shipment, 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, territory, or foreign country, is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not less than twenty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or imprisonment 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.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF NON-SALE OF

GAME ACT.

The market hunter has caused the enactment of legislation for the protection of the wild life from extermination in forty-seven states of the union. Why?

First-The larger species of wild game, such as the buffalo, elk and antelope, first fell prey to his deadly work, and these in turn were followed by the passenger pigeon. As a consequence these species have become SO scarce that he has turned his attention to netting and snaring even our song birds. They have been found by the thousands in cold storage by the authorities.

Second-Elimination of the market hunter is not a new idea. It is his deadly slaughter that has brought to the people a realization that he is merely a reaper. He sows nothing, in 99 per cent of instances is not a taxpayer, is an avowed violator of all limit laws which are based upon equity. His limit is his stock of ammunition, his trail can be easily followed through every state by the attendant depletion of every available form of wild life, and he is the father of open and unrestricted, wanton and cruel destruction.

Third-The market hunter kills for the mar ket a greater pro rata of wild game than do all of the 163,000 men, women and children who provide the total fund for the protection of game. The taxpayers of the state at large do not have to contribute one cent for the protection of game; for it is not a direct tax upon the people, being provided entirely by those who hunt and fish.

Fourth-With the passing of the market hunter the great mass of hunters will have an opportunity to shoot upon the vast areas he now monopolizes, and where he has carried on his slaughter of hundreds of thousands of our migratory waterfowl and other birds.

Fifth-Our sister states, younger in statehood than California, have eliminated the market hunter, thereby perpetuating the supply of waterfowl to California. Thousands of them are bred annually throughout Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Nevada and in the provinces of Canada, yet they prohibit the market hunting of the birds and the taking of eggs. Commercial interests gathered eggs by the shipload on the Yukon until our own government put a stop to

the practice. When the egg is hatched and arrives in California in the form of a duck the market hunter immediately commercializes it. Is that fair to our sister states and to our own government?

Sixth-In proof of the statement that the market hunter is the sole destroyer, the figures on duck shipments into San Francisco alone are given: In 1910, about 500,000; in 1911, 200,000; in 1912, 106,000, and in 1913 but 85,000. In the face of these figures the market hunter and his coworker, the commission man, have made the statement, "What a fine thing it would be to feed the wild life of California to the millions who are coming to our fair."

Seventh-The market hunter and the commission man collected many thousands of dollars for the referendum that means, eventually, the total extermination of our quail, doves, deer, ducks, and, in fact, every member of the furred and feathered tribes, even to our songbirds.

Eighth-This referendum petition was circulated by the market hunter and the commission man, and the following figures show to what extent they will go to debauch the will of the people for the conservation of their wild life: From San Francisco county alone came petitions aggregating 32,108 names. The certificate of the registrar of voters on file in the office of the secretary of state discloses the fact that 10,328 names did not appear on the great register 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 the word "Yes" on the ballot at the right of the 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 their marks of disapproval upon the market hunter and his methods. If you fail in your duty toward your wild life you will witness its everlasting destruction.

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

President Fish and Game Commission. ARGUMENT AGAINST NON-SALE OF GAME

ACT.

Citizens are asked to support the referendum petition now submitted to electors for their approval 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 following reasons:

I. That the act is class legislation.

II. That the law was not enacted in good faith. III. 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 the 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 to him for the enjoyment of his sport extremely limited. That signs which forbid trespassing, hunting and fishing confront him on every side, and that in the majority of cases the signs are displayed by the authority of hunting and fishing clubs, and that practically all the desirable hunting and fishing grounds are under the control 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 market 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 transportation, 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. Furthermore, 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 killing 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 permits them to enjoy special privileges, at the expense of the people at large. The game of the state, and especially the wild fowl, is a recognized asset which should assist in reducing the added cost of living. Let each voter ask himself 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 privileged few for whose benefit it was passed-and then vote as his reason and his conscience dictate. F. M. BAILEY,

Secretary People's Fish and Game Protective Association.

PROPOSED LAW.

ARTICLE XIII.

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 amended, now reads as follows:

EXISTING LAW.

Section 12. The legislature shall provide for the levy and collection of an annual poll tax, of not less than two dollars, on every male inhabitant of this state over twenty-one and under sixty years of age, except paupers, idiots, insane persons, and Indians not taxed. Said 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 application 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 managed to shift the burden so that each man had to pay his own head tax. Thus the original reason 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 before, 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 nations that still levy that tax are: Russia, Turkey, Persia, China, and a rapidly decreasing number 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 unnecessary 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 some other equally objectionable method of taxation. The deficiency can easily be made up from the tax on corporation incomes,

An unjust and oppressive tax can not be justified on the ground that the proceeds are devoted to a useful purpose. It is not necessary to tax the poor in order to maintain the schools and to pay the teachers a decent salary. California is a rich state-the richest state per capita in the union-therefore it is erroneous to assume that a head tax is necessary to maintain the schools. The poll tax is objectionable because it has never been uniformly collected. The state controller's reports prove that in some counties only 21 per cent of the population pay this tax and as high as 68 per cent in others. Wealthy citizens sometimes pay the poll tax; laborers always pay it through deductions from their wages.

The poll tax is a double tax. The class of persons from whom it is chiefly collected pay (indirectly but none the less certainly) the greater part of the taxes levied directly upon the owners of property. The latter class shifts the burden on the former class. The propertyless class pays both the direct and the indirect tax.

The poll tax has not even the poor excuse of being justified because it taxes aliens, as this class contributes less than one eighth of the total amount collected. Hence we penalize our citizens to the extent of seven dollars for every one dollar we manage to extract from aliens.

The poll tax is despotic because it classes human life as a species of property. It is unjust because it places an additional tax on those who in other ways pay a share of the so-called direct taxation out of all proportion to their means. It can not be considered necessary so long as private property-the true creation of the state-suffices for the purpose of taxation. PAUL SCHARRENBERG,

Sec'y California State Federation of Labor. ARGUMENT AGAINST ABOLITION OF POLL

TAX.

The state poll tax yields for the state school fund about $850,000 per annum, which is about one seventh of the total amount which the state provides for the support of common schools. In addition the poll tax is used by thirty-five out of the fifty-eight counties for road and hospital purposes and to provide additional school funds, amounting in all, in 1913, to $260,000. The total amount collected in poll taxes, state and county, is, therefore, in round numbers $1,110,000.

The proceeds of this tax are devoted to purposes namely, the support of the schools, roads, and hospitals-which there is no doubt the people will insist shall be maintained as liberally as ever. If this vast sum of $1,110,000 were raised by the general ad valorem tax, it would mean, all told, a tax of four cents on each one hundred dollars of the assessed valuation of the state. It has been suggested by some that the loss might be made good by increasing the taxes upon corporations. This suggestion, of course, applies to the state's share only, or $850,000, for there is no other way of raising the $260,000 which the counties would lose, except by the ad valorem tax. But when it is remembered that. at the last session of the legislature, the taxes on the corporations were raised as high as they justly could be, in the opinion of that body, it certainly can not be assumed that it would be right to immediately raise them still higher.

The arguments against the poll tax are, first, that it is an old tax. There are lots of things among our institutions that are old, but are not