— The petitioner was convicted of violating an ordinance of the city of Stockton and sentenced to pay a fine, or in default of payment, to be imprisoned in satisfaction thereof.

He claims that his imprisonment is unlawful because the part of the ordinance which he is accused of violating is unreasonable, partial, unjust, and oppressive, and because it is in violation of section 18 of article XX. of the constitution, which reads as follows: “No person shall, on account of sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation, or profession.”

The clauses of the ordinance in question are the following: —■

The offense charged against the petitioner, and of which he was convicted, was the employing of females in a saloon where intoxicating liquors were sold in less quantities than one quart without the necessary license, *362 There is nothing unfair, unreasonable, or arbitrary in the provisions of this ordinance. It is not open to any of the objections stated by Mr. Justice McKinstry to a similar ordinance of the city of San Francisco, in his opinion in the case of Ex parte Maguire, 57 Cal. 610 . If it is invalid for any reason, it is because the constitution means what it was held to mean in the opinion of Mr. Justice Thornton in the same case. The petitioner’s argument, indeed, is substantially taken from that opinion, and the answer on the part of the city is in substance the same as the view expressed by Justice McKinstry as to the power remaining in the legislature to regulate the employment of women.

We are of the opinion that this view is a sound one, and that it subserves a wholesome public policy. The ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power vested in the municipal authorities.

The prisoner is remanded.

De Haven, J., Garoutte, J., Sharpstein, J., and Paterson, J., concurred.