Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-01-02

manly TO force upon certain business inter-
ests an excessive share of public burdens"
As the liquor seller, in common with the
merchant and the grocer, must be assumed
to pay the uniform tax laid on property
values, the head tax, and the special taxes
for various branches of the government,
any additional tax in the way of a license
fee is in excess of our general taxation, and
therefore high license is excessive only in
degree
BY high license, the people advocating it
do not, as our correspondent assumes and
claims, seek to be relieved of bearing their
just and equitable share of the cost Of gov
eminent. On the contrary, they claim.
with strong showing in the way OF proofs
and demonstrations, that high license more
nearly adjusts, properly and eouitably, the
costs of government, since it proposes to
make that pay most which calls for most
OF police vigilance and correction and pre-
venton of crime. If our correspondent
doubts this, he should examine the crimi-
nal annals Of the city, and investigate the
history of the dives and q Barbary coasts :"
of the cities of the land The estimate was
not that the saloons would be reduced 10
fifty. Our correspondent falls into eyre
gious error on this point. The estimate was
that it will reduce them by fifty-that is, to
two hundred. 1t is entirely true that the
power to fix the license rate at $50 is able
10 increase it to 500, as suggested by
our correspondent; nay more, the law
gives the authority to absolutely
suppress and prohibit : and it may
here be stated that it is the
best legal opinion of the State
that the Constitution of California
confers this power upon all communities,
IN the form of what is generally known as
local option. But the facts stated are suffici-
ent to show that high license is not pro-
hibition, nor is 1t meant to be prohibition,
| and in fact is more opposed by prohibit
uonists generally than by any other class.
Our correspondent takes fiat issue with the
statement that high license as tried in
other States, has worked to charm. He
denies 1t, and charges the Sacramento COM
mittee with ignorance of the facts. This
is mere dogmatism, and goes for nothing.
So far as our examination goes, it bears out
| the statement of the committee. Where
| ever thoroughly and sincerely tried, high
| license has, as we read the news of the
world, proven to be all that is claimed for
| it. Our correspondent holds that if the
| low places are closed by high license, the
consumer of liquor will buy it by the Jug
! ful and turn his home into grOgshop and
a place of revelry. This is mere opinion,
and as dogmatic as the former statement.
Cihtc tHe opportunity Vi inc uTlHker 10 Cd
| tain liquor will not be limited by high
license, we fail to see how the necessity
will be any greater for him to convert his
home into a GROCERY, than now. As for
| instance, in block not far distant from
where we write there are more
| than dozen places where liquors are
| sold at retail, but we submit that
| eight or nine would still be able to
supply all the drinkers who frequent the
| locality, and probably to better advantage,
and with better quality of goods than
| some now deal out The correspondent is
| entirely correct in the statement that the
effect of high license will be to concentrate
| the drinking within narrow limits. 1t is
precisely that which the advocates of high
| license hope to accomplish. 500, too. it is
a correct statement that high license is not
| scheme to reform the habitue of the low
drinking place, though it is not to be lost
| sight of, that with the temptation of the
vicious place removed, the liability of the
drinker to vicious influences will be
| lessened. Our correspondent will scarcely
contend that the character of a neighbor-
| hood will not be improved By the elimina-
| ton of, say, half-dozen dives and vile
| dcggeries, and the retention of q half
dozen decently conducted saloons, where
men are not robbed and carousal and dis
So our correspondent is correct
when he charges high license with being a
scheme to raise revenue by taxing indecent
places beyond the probability OF existence.
As 10 the right" to deprive any given
number of the right " to do business, be-
cause of inability 10 pay the tax laid on it,
we reply that it rests on precisely the same
| footing as the right to charge the present
| rate of license tax, which debars those from
engaging in the business who are unable to
| pay the lesser fee. In fact, our correspond
| ent's argument, carried to its final and H.
evitable conclusion, would lead him to de-
clare against any and all license tax what
ever. These replies, we think, traverse
all the positions taken by our correspond
| emf, save that in which he assumes the
possibility of no saloons taking out licenses
at all, and the direfnl consequences that
would result, concerning which, it is to be
said, that it will be time enough to cross
that bridge whenever such structure is
erected. 1t is too supremacy ridiculous an
| assumption to merit consideration-TED EDS
RFCORD-I MON