The other reason provided for the claim that the 1926 law targeted is the report prefacing the law. But, that claim is based upon contorted projective reading of the preface, ignoring the context.
Some base their claims of racism on the preface to Law with references by the alderman to “Running Wild” and “Natives” applying pre-conceived 100 year subsequent interpretation to language readily explained by this 1926 New York Times Article published shortly before the Cabaret Law was introduced. This language is readily explained by reading the contemporaneous account in the New York Times of June 30, 1926, month before this bill was introduced and by reviewing the discussion of the background of the law in Perretti’s book.
Does the 1926 Cabaret Law as enacted in any way concern the number of musicians and the types of musical instruments that my be played without requiring a Cabaret License? Read this for yourself.
