The Shasta courier., 1854-03-25
THE SHASTA COURIER.
The Lice~se Law.

\
! EprToRs SgAsTa CouersR:-I have to thank
You kindly for your article in the last number o.
the Courier in relation to the license question
II is believed ihai the interests OF the County
viii be thereby promoted without the expense
of litigation. inasmuch as it brings the matter
directly before the people and if it were neces
sary that the delinquents should be notified, this
is perhaps the best way TO give the notice. Al
all events it is the least expensive, which is an
important consideration. | hope. hereafter, that
every man in TIE County who is doing a busi-
ness for which license is required By law, will
see for himself that he has it. With regard to
giving notice, however, it would seem as though
a man who had u license in his pocke, or in his
desk, could tell as well for himself when that IL
cense expired, as any one else could tell for him.
The statute declares the carrying on certain
kinds OF business without license, to be mis-
demeanor And is it, indeed, hardship that a
man should be prosecuted for ,nisdemeanor,
without being first notifedl / think it has not
been so decided heretofore None of the Coun-
ty officers can ascertain who are doing business
Neither the books of the County Treasurer or
County Auditor, show who are doing business
without license. 1t is true that the books of
the County Auditor do. or should show when,
TO whom, and for what kinds of business licen-
ses have been issued, and when they expire !;
but men are SO continually quitting one kind Of
business and engaging another, that those
books form true criterion from which to
judge as to who are doing business without Ii
cense. Besides there are many men doing bust
not and never had any license, and their names
do not of course, appear upon the books.
In your article you remark that you presume
the District Attorney is empowered to institute
proceedings. If you will refer to the statute
you will see that the District Attorney is not
merely empowered to institute proceedings. but
that it is expressly made his duty 10 do so and
omission of duty in this regard would rem
der him culpable.-[ See Compiled Lars, p. 67s,
Sec 5.
You have probably been misinformed as to
some OF the suits commenced against some of
tU0 CltlZcuS OI heu DlullS, LOT III Two OF the
cases the delinquents never had any license for
doing the business for which they were sued.
and one OF them had been doing business with
out license for near year, and the other some
months.
Some two or three months ago Gas near as
can recollecD wrote and sent letters upon this
subject tu prominent men and County officers in
remote parts of the County, calling their atten-
ton to this matter, and referring to the statute,
numbering the page and sections in citation to
the same supposing that they would notify
those who were doing business in their vicinity
without license. and requesting them to inform
me of such as refused 10 procure license And
among others l sent such letter to a Justice of
the Peace residing at Red Bluffs, and have
since been informed by him that lie received
my letter.
| have thronsh hout endeavored to discharge
my duty in this matter in such manner as
should be most for the interests of the County.
and as little onerous upon the denquents as pos
sble. and if the good people of Red Bluffs are
offended, l sincerely regret it, whether the
should ever become better acquainted, we shall
understand each other better But be that as il
may, shall spare no labor. and shrink from no
responsibility in the discharge of my official
duties.
AS an evidence of the benefits resulting to the
County from the action of the District Attorney
in this matter, have to state, that have been
informed by the County Treasurer, that since
the first of March instant there has been paid
into the County Treasury for the use of the
County, over one thousand dollars for, licenses,
besides several hundred dollars for the use of
the State.
Respectfully &c., JOSIAH WARD.
Dist Attorney.
Shasta March goth. 1854.