The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1886-02-13
II II e
THE HIGH LICENSE MOVEMENT.

The high license movement is attract
ing great attention throughout Cali
fOrnia, several interior towns having
adopted it. A resolution was before the
San Francisco Board of Supervisors fix
ing the beer license at $500, and the
spirit license at 81 900 year. The reso-
luton was supported by petition and an
Influential deputation, the principal
SPEAKERS on that side being j. M. Moore,
q vineyardist, and Rev. Father Mont
gomery on behalf OF Archbishop Riordan
and the Catholic Church. The former
stated that high license ordinance in
Chicago had increased the revenue of
the city from that source from 5000, 900
to 81 ,200,0 900 year, while reducing the
number of licensed houses by 600. There
were 3, 100 licensed houses in San Fran
cisco. High license would reduce the
number one-third, and probably increase
the revenue from $2SO,0O0 to 81 800, 900
a year Father Montgomery made a
strong plea for high license on behalf OF
widows, orphans and helpless children
who were rendered destitute through the
Drunkenness of parents. There were
1O0, 900 Catholics in San Francisco, but
many of them, through drunkenness,
were churchmen only in name. Half
the taxes of San Francisco were ex-
pended in the support of criminals, in
sane persons, and widows and orphans
who, if it had not been for drink, would
not have been charges upon public
charity. Prohibition he believed to be
impraeticable, but high license would
measurably reach the evil Nine-tenths
of the citizens favored high license. r.
J.. Harrison, wholesale liquor dealer
and weIl-known anti-railroad agitator,
opposed the resolution, alleging that the
petition was the work of fanatics. He
would sign anything rather than listen
to temperance lecture. -Four thousand
honest men would be driven out OF
employment if the resolution passed, and
only high-toned saloons and low dives
would flourish They would have more
funerals from drink than now. 1t re-
quired more brains to make successful
saloon-keeper than it did to make sue
cessful banker. Father Montgomery de-
MED that this was the work of fanatics.
Let four thousand bar-tenders be thrown
out of that class OF employment and they
would have chance of earning a living
otherwise to the great advantage OF
themselves and the community at large.
Mr.. Moore stated that the saloons OF
San Francisco contributed 100000 a
year to the public revenue, and cost the
city and county 81, 100000. A memorial
was also read from the Retail Liquor
Dealers Mutual Protective Association
Directing TO the resolution before the
Supervisors, and alleging that it would
encourage low dives. The question was
postponed by the Supervisors. 1t is
hardly probable the Board will raise the
licenses, for the reason that the saloon
keepers elect the city government and
judiciary of San Francisco, but public
sentiment viii ultimately compel effec-
tive action to regulate the liquor traffic.
1t would be infinitely better for respecta-
BILE liquor dealers in San Francisco to
have high license and a strict anti-dive
ordinance than the present system,
which admits of a license to almost any
den or hoVel, and in effect removes them
from police control.