text: Well, I should think if his claim under the Constitution — under a constitutional claim is valid that would be a fortiori.
  And therefore, you could get — get these questions raised by habeas corpus to the Court of Appeals and then go up to the Supreme Court, is that right?
  By which you mean what?Is it just a review of the points of law or is there a redetermination on the record of the fact or what?
  And you’ll be heard only — you’ll be heard only on the points then raised, what, in your statement on appeal?
  On an appeal from a final judgment of conviction, all errors from the time of the trial through the conclusion are considered.
  On the appeal from your motion — order denying a motion for new trial, only those points urged on the motion are considered.
  And I call the Court’s attention to the fact that only one sentence in that opinion is devoted to the constitutional question, and that sentence reads as follows, there is no merit to the claim that the ordinance is unconstitutional.
  The other matters were devoted primarily to the insufficiency of the evidence and the Court pointed out that everyone of the facts essential to the proper conviction of the charge before the Court were undisputedly shown in the record.
  Where — where this has been raised properly in your state court and they have — this — this Court has denied them on the ground that it’s — that it is constitutional.
  I presume that you somewhat to the fact that they’re not allowed to take this kind of case up to the Supreme Court —
  The appellate department is — it is by the judicial council rules considered the court of last resort on direct appeals, both civil and criminal from municipal and other inferior courts.
  Mr. Grey, are you making any argument here that we ought not entertain this appeal because either habeas corpus or prohibition or some other method was not sought to obtain a determination under California Supreme Court or District Court of Appeals?
  She was released on bail pending the appeal, and the — there was only a fine — payment of a fine imposed rather than a jail sentence.
  Now, had the fine not been paid and the court revoked probation and then thereafter imposed a jail sentence, habeas corpus would have been available, yes.
  Persons in full — even a person who is allowed out on probation, habeas corpus may still — since the Court has control as it were, habeas corpus.
  We have felt that this is a proper police regulation, and I think that that trying to decipher the issues of this case, I think that is the sole question.
  I have attempted to point out other registration ordinances wherein there has been a declaration that it isn’t a proper police regulation, the Alien Registration Act.
  The courts have said that the states in the dissenting opinion in this Hines versus Davidowitz appears that the courts indicate that the State is entitled to know who is present, where they are.
  I have also alluded to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, and some of the other city ordinances which require taxi cab drivers to register with the police department, those who sell newspapers.
  And the courts have consistently said the city is entitled to know so that they can keep track of those types of people.
  We feel that the ordinance does not require that any person give any information which is incriminated.
  They cannot form the basis of a new or subsequent crime because punishment has already been meted out.
  No, I think that the — this appeal properly before this Court goes to the one issue on the constitutionality as a reasonable police regulation.