Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-01-30
Our Licsnsss-WiII the Ordinance
Held Water?


EDITOR HERALD: 1 agree with
our astute Councilman Butler that
the Chinese ought to go, and 1 am
also in favor Of any law or ordi-
nance that will accomplish, or aid
In accomplishing that result. But
L am not an advocate of any enact
ment which, owing to its innate
absurdity and unconstitutionality,
will make us ridiculous and tend
to isolate us from the outside
world. Nor can L admire that
quality of craftsmanship which.
while protesting to legislate against
Cinnamon, destroys.Gaucasian bus
mess enterprise.
The Council is attempting to i'm
pose license tax of $40 per month
on vegetable peddlers who use
wagons and S25 per month upon
laundries. Other peddlers are to
pay amounts averaging So per
month.
The town of Santa Clara passed
an ordinance last summer impos.
ing a tax OF S20.psr month upon all
laundries in that town. The Chi
namen refused to pay it, as they
will do here, and a test case was
brought before Judge Bslden, of
the Twentieth District Court, The
following is the opinion of that
learned Judge, as reported by the
San Jose Herald OF July II, 1873:
This action is brought by the plaintiff
70 recover from the defendant the sum
OF Wv, as three months license tax ,m.
posed at the rate of $40 per month by the
town OF santa Clara upon all persons en-
gagged In the laundry business within
saia Town. The facts of this case show
tnat thls TAX bears no proportion to fhe
other municipal charges Imposed Nv
SAID town, and IL further appears that II
Is over twenty times the tax before thaI
Time imposed by the town upon this bus
nance does not undertake to annortian
this burthen TO the amount of business
transacted, labor performed or recaintS
put leV1es this charge alike upon lam,
arles employing one and those employ
Ing many laborers. 1t is unnecessarv 10
review the many adjudications upon the
questlons mere involved. The cases are
coilated In Dillon on Municipal C0rnora.
lions ana Cooley on Taxation, and the
ru.ss ihulcated by these eminent COM
and applied by our own Supreme Courf
In Ex-narte Frank upon habeas cornns'
not yet reported. Those principles are
conclusive of the case at the bar and are
aecrsive OF many OF the questions here
argued, and determine, first, that q mu.
nlolpal corporation may by ordinance
impose charge, as matter of revenue.
upon business prosecuted within Its cor,
Rqrate limits. Second, that an action
It's collection. But while this case at
once upholds the power and mode of en-.
forcement, 1t also establishes the rnles
ana restrictions by which this power
uss =, iss ~ on,J g1yernea and suided. Those
either precedent or argument for ID cir
support. AS stated In Ex-parte Frank
citing MIR. Dillon's work as elementarv
Jaw, these are: THAT such tax be not
tial or in restraint Of trade,u To wh;ch
restrictions may we'll be added thai n
should not be in restraint of, or Operate
oPPressively upon, tho natural right NJ
adi 70 TABOR: Upsn tho ground that the
lion OF these fundamental prIncipIese If
was adjudged by the Supreme Court sbat
ne same was absolutely void, All the
objections presented In the case OF Ex.
patte t%s FranR Sant Win many more, are found
e Upon the authority OF
his case and Of the cases cited. this or
nance must b, adiudged void. and iufa.
nent must bc for defendant
Now, then, almost every proyi.
sion OF the proposed license ordj-
nance Is open to these criticisms.
It is sought to tax a lawyer or a
physician or an architect, who
makes $500 per month, as much as
'ne who realizes $50 during the
same period. In fact the unfortu.
1ate professional whose income
amounts to nothing-who reioices
merely In o professional name
contributes as much as his brethren
who are making fortunes. Our
iailkmen will donate So per month
10 the city. So will the farmer,
who chances to bring a young pig
INTO town for sale. Barber sbops
must pay SO cents per chair,regard-
ess of the fact, In many instances.
hat the proprietor monopolizes the
chair during the greater part of the
lime. A man who is absolutely
oliHd 10 not subject to the license
but If he has two good
ayes, or even one, the rule is differ
ant. If he is lame he la free from
,harge, but If he wears we'll con-
'tructed cork leg and walks erect, I
suppose the lame ordinance would
not apply to him. Why this disorim.
lnation? 1 am aware that the gem
5leman who suggested this exemp-
ion of the blind and the lame acted
rom charitable motives. But no
aw has ever been declared consti-
,utional because it was charitable.
As long as men who are affected
with broken noses, gout and dys-
oepsia pay taxes their companions
n misery must do likewise.
All aliens ineligible to the privil-
age Of becoming citizens of the
United States, employed In any
capacity in the city Of Los Angeles,
must each pay IS per month. But,
'ays Judge Belden, the ordinance
should not be in restraint of or op-
crate oppressively upon the natural
tight OF all to labor"
1 recollect hearing Mr.. Butler
say, in public speech, when he
was seeking the votes of his fellow
,itizens, that he meyer lived in q
,ity where the licenses were as op-
pressive as in Los Angeles, and that
Il chosen to represent his ward he
would do his best to
bring about another condition
of things. But it seems the gem
tleman has applied the soethin g
hahn of reduction to jewelers. only.
One dollar license tax per month
will be paid by Councilman Butler,
but If a dealer In general merchan-
1ise sells q shirt button now and
then. or offers any such for sale, he
must stand an additional license
tax Of IS.
In the case Of Ex-parte Frank on
habeas corpus, No. 1885, decided
March !, 1878 by the Supreme
Court Of California, the sample
sellers ordinance of San Francisco