lature in 1955 added section 24200 (e) to the Business and Professions Code in order to override the Stoumen decision (which is not within the legislative power, since constitutional interpretations by the state high court can only be overcome by constitutional amendment) and to provide for the suspension of the license of premises which become "a resort for illegal possessors or users of narcotics, prostitutes, pimps, panderers, or sexual perverts." However, the courts have said they felt a literal interpretation of the new section would raise grave doubts as to its constitutionality, and have therefore interpreted the section in the light of the Stoumen definition of what constitutes "good cause" for revocation of a license that is, "something more must be shown than that many of his patrons were homosexuals and that they used his restaurant and bar as a meeting place.”

The Appeals Court elaborated this principle in two later cases (Nickola and Kershaw) where considerable evidence was entered regarding "illegal, disgusting and immoral conduct on the licensed premises" and regarding the licensee's knowledge of such conduct. In these cases, the court upheld the license revocations, but laid a strong burden of proof on the enforcement officials.

Between September 7, 1955, and the following June 1st, the Alcoholic Beverage Control, the Oakland police and Armed Services police in the area began spying daily on the First and Last Chance, a bar which had started in business in 1946 "as a gathering place for homosexuals." Albert L. Vallerga, who had bought a half interest in 1950, testified that he had bought into the bar knowing this and because of this. He had consulted an attorney and was advised that since his bar was a public place he had the right and the duty to

serve his customers so long as they behaved themselves.

The cops-plainclothes and uniformed haunted the place for nine months. They got their evidence. The ABC filed charges. A hearing was held and the license was revoked. The Appeals Board upheld the re-

vocation.

On January 27th, this year, over two years later, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The revocation had been based merely on the section 24200 (e) provision that proof that patrons were perverts was sufficient grounds for revocation of license. The court insisted insisted such grounds were clearly insufficient, without evidence of specific acts that were disgusting, immoral and illegal.

The Court had obviously moved from the very excellent and compelling amici curiae briefs filed by San Francisco attorney Morris Lowenthal (who is currently fighting a new attempt to revoke the license of the Black Cat) and associates, laying down an ironclad argument which clearly established the direction the court must inevitably take. Not that the court went quite so far as these classic briefs (which quoted liberally from Dr. Blanche Baker's introduction to the book Gay Bar, and from The Ladder, the magazine published by the Daughters of Bilitis) urged.

Attorneys Golden and Stefan citing the case of People v. Giani, pointed out that the assumption that "a 'homosexual' is the equivalent to a 'sex pervert' is not supported by the law nor by the facts." Citing People v. Berta, Ex Parte Smith, and other cases, they demolished the idea the State had presented, that while it may be all very legal for one homosexual to take a drink, it is harmful to the public interest for homosexuals to gather or associate in a bar. From the Lancaster v. Reed decision: "The citizen has a right of selecting

7