The Vancouver independent. (Vancouver, W.T. [Wash.]) 1875-1910, 1875-10-30
CHI Saasenaer 9ndepenaellt
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 50, 1879.
City VS.. County.

can only Wolk tiSaS'rously 10 inc III
terests of both. In this new and COM
parativcly undcvcloped country there is
the greater need that all efforts should
be united, and that the public policy
should be in accordance with the fund
amental idea of our form of govern
mcnt-''the greatest good to the great
est number" He who would work
with any object beyond this is, inno-
Gently, perhaps, because ignorantly,
working for public evil.
The relation that should exist be-
tween city and county, in order to SC
cure the greatest good TO the greatest
number is one of complete reciprocity.
From the period of our earliest think
ing and reasoning HSc we nay been III
favor of the principle of union, and OPP
posed TO the principle of di>intcgration
and scliishncss which would sl!ndcr the
interests of the nation, state or commu-
nifty, create rivrlfcs and discortls, and
seriously impair, if not altogether abol-
ish, cooperative force.
The financial interests, and the aims
and objects of both city and county are
identical, and that element in either
place which would create hostility, or
foster a spirit of in iudicious rivalry be-
tween the two, will work against the
public good, and finally defeat its own
ends.
SO much we have deemed necessary
to say as preface to what VIC shall
now add in regard to the proposed di-
version of the liquor license revenue
from the treasury of the county to that
Of the city.
1t is proposed by petition to the
Legislature to provide by law for the
payment of all liquor license revenue
into the city treasury. In favor of this
measure it is argued that the course
heretofore in vogue, that of giving two
thirds of liquor license revenue to the
county, is unprecedented, that as a mat
ter of right the city is entitled to all the
revenue derived from licensed liquor
saloons within her corporate limits, and
that the city is without funds to devote
to street and other improvements, and
that she has debt of $500 to pay.
Upon the other hand it is argued
against the measure TINT the county
debt is over $1,000. and that the county
is greatly in reed of available means
with which to build bridges, n jail and
ourt-housc, and construct roads, and
that the only cash revenue in the county
treasury is derived from liquor licenses.
Now, VIC have no doubt but that both
city and county need money bad
enough. But is the matter to be de-
tcrmined altogether by the needs of
either party' What is the rule Of
right? Is either one or the other side
absolutely entitled to all of the fund in
question? These questions suggest an
other. Why is a tax of 5000 per an
mum imposed upon the liquor seller:
Because Il ma jority of the people have
said, by their representatives, the traffic
is an evil which we cannot altogether
abolish, and which prudence dictates
should be regulated. Hence, in order
to deter as far as possible the irrcspon-
siblc person from engaging in Il bust
ness, and to provide 4 fund out of which
to partially compensate the public for
what the results of the traffic cost, and |
also as Il sort ofcxtra judicial exemplary
damage fol- the moral evil done there
by to the community, the people have
SAID to the liquor dcalcrs, pay us $500 |
per annum, each one OF You. DO die
evils of this traffic extend beyond the
corporate limits of Y ncuuvcr? Ger
tainly they do. Docs The word people,
as used above, include the county, OF
only the city? The county, of course.
Vancouver is the only place where Ii
quor is sold i'll Clarke County, and
bearing in mind that the interests of
city and county arc identical, i'll other
words, that all belong to the county
whether in the city OF out of it, should
not this fund be shared by each: We
think the law is very good as il stands,
but would not object TO an amendment
thcrcunto which would divide the fund
equally between the treasures OF the
CITY and county.