Compiled by Carl B. Harding, Director Department of Education

Mattachine Society, Inc. EDUCATION HANDBOOK

The new Educational Handbook, prepared early in 1959 by the Director of Education for the Mattachine Society, is more than a guide to conducting a Mattachine education program. This book is actually a comprehensive reference source and "how to do it” guide for presenting a wide variety of programs on the sex education subject, including large and small group discussions, mod erated panel forums, sound tape programs, films, radio and television materials, etc. It is replete with suggested sources of aid and carries a long list of topics and titles for all of these various programs. Also listed are a variety of public relations contacts useful in planning and presenting programs on sex education subjects for sponsoring organizations such as the Mattachine Society, University study groups, etc.

The 64-page booklet sells for $1.00 per copy.

Mail Orders NOW to:

mattaching REVIEW

693 Mission Street

San Francisco 5; Calif.

"We do not think that section 24200, subdivision (e), was passed by the Legislature to repeal or to change the rule of the Stoumen case to the effect that improper or illegal or immoral conduct must occur on the premises before discipline of the licensee is permitted, but was passed with the Stoumen case in mind to clarify the rule of that case. In the Nickola case there was ample evidence of improper conduct on the premises, and of the licensee's knowledge of such conduct.

Petitions for hearing were denied in both the Kershaw and Nickola cases. It must, therefore, be accepted that, under section 24200(e), a license may not be suspended or revoked simply because homosexuals or sexual perverts patronize the bar in question. Before such deprivation can occur there must be improper, illegal, disgusting or immoral acts of conduct committed on the premises to the knowledge of the licensee. As already pointed out, unless section 24200(e) is so interpreted, there would be grave doubts as to its constitutionality. The Stoumen case was interpreting what constitutes "good cause" for the revocation of a license under the Constitution. This constituted a limitation on the Legislature as well as on the administrative board. The only way the constitutionality of section 24200(e) could be saved was to assume that the Legislature was not attempting to over-rule. the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Constitution, but was acting in conformity there to. That is the explanation of the Kershaw and Nickola cases.

In the present case the proceeding was commenced and tried on the theory that mere patronage by homosexuals, to the knowledge of the licensees, was sufficient to warrant a revocation of the license. As al· ready pointed out, there is no charge or finding that immoral, improper, disgusting or illegal acts were committed on the premises. The respondent nevertheless, seeks to uphold the revocation on the ground that there was substantial evidence of such conduct. We think that respondent may properly urge such a contention, and that, if the record shows such conduct, the judgment should be affirmed.

The period involved in the charge contained in the amended accusation is from September 7, 1955, to June 1, 1956, a period of about nine months. The bar commenced operations in 1946, and in 1950 Vallerga purchased a half interest. During all the period it was operating, and particularly during the nine-month period involved in the charges, there had been no arrests for improper conduct on the premises, except one when the bartender called the police to eject an intoxicated patron. During the nine-month period involved in the charge, the licensed premises were subjected to frequent and intensive surveillance by the city and military police. Admittedly, not once during this period did the police call attention of the licensees or their employees to any improper acts on the part of patrons that they had observed, nor was any person arrested