EDITORIAL

Fire Hoses Next?

There soom to be two different approaches to the condi– tions at a "gay bar" known as the Tay-Bush Cafo in San Francisco one, the investigation of safety regulation violations by the Fire Department at the behest of Paul A. Bissinger, police commissioner; the other, a raid on the occupants and the arrest on August 13 of 103 persons on charges of "visiting a disorderly house" (a few being booked additionally for "lewd dancing").

Investigation of safety conditions would certainly appear to be in order regardless of the conflicting claims as to the number of persons on the premises at the time of the raid Owner Robert Johnson says 242, while the police hold that there could not have been more than 110 in the place, which has four tables and 16 seats at a

counter.

But does the investigation for the safety of the patrons require a raid on and the wholesale arrest of said patrons? Are we to believe that the public welfare is served by dragging 89 men and 14 women to jail and booking them on the questionable charge of "visiting a disorderly house"? Is it not possible that the alleged fire hazard could be circumvented by other means than exchanging the crowded conditions of a cafe for the crowded conditions of the city jail? The New York City Fire Department puts a limit on the number of patrons a cafe may "safely" serve. And certainly the cafe owners in that city are forewarned as to existing hazardous conditions. This would seem the more sensible approach to the problem to safeguard the public by preventing hazard than to wait until a cafe has extended its patronago beyond its "safe" capacity.

Perhaps there was a side issue in the case which seemed more important to the raiders than "public safety." It is reported that Police Sergeant James Ludlow, in plain-