Fort Worth daily gazette. (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1886-10-14
VETOED.
MAJ or Broiles Refuses 10 sanction an
Ordinance which He Declares
MonopolIstlc.
He Attacks the Legality OF Butchers
License, and fails Back on tho
ConAtitution.

AGAIN mas Mayor BrOlles seen proper
to exercise the prerogative, which in com.
mon with President Cleveland, Gov. Ire
land and other chief executive officers Of
the land, he has power to use
when things don't 90 exsctly
right to suit his honor's mind
This time the mayor has reformed
TO the worthy fathers OF Fort Worth an
ordluace which was passed Tuesdsy, and !
before the setting of Wednesdays sun !
he nips it in the bud, so to speak, with II
cold and unfeellng veto. II is in regard |
! to a subject from which the charm OF
novelty has vanished some time
ago. THE GAZETTE would faln |
spare it's readers further perusal |
1 OF this municipal chestnut, but an impor-
ative duty demands that the subject Ne
pursued to the bitter end, II there Is ever |
going to be any end.
This much by way OF preface TO TIRE |
latest phase of the butcher tax. A
stated above, the mayor has vetoed i
The original ordinance made II incum.
bent on this partlc llar class of business
men to pay yearly tax of $50, as an oc-
cupation tax, a good many OF tile
butchers were highly pleased with thi
act OF the council. Some Of the larger
ones wanted 1t put to 500. The smalle
ones saw the matter differently. HeariI z
that there was serious uncertainty as g.
the legality of any kind of tax Oh vending
meat, as an occupation, they formed
pool to nullify the law, II it could
be done. Not wishing TO be oppressive
on their fellow-cltizens and mindful OF
Bobbie Burns declaration that ''Man's
lnhumanity to man makes countless thou
sands mourn" the council again met to
!
was look Of gravity on the face Of each
individual alderman that bespoke
J palmer than words how deeply
the consideration of this matter
had entered his soul. All seemed
to feel that the strained relations
wouldn't bear straiDiDg any more, and
that the crisis had come. Now or never
the question must be settled. The city
attorney was present. He had fixed up a
carefully prepared ordinance licensing the
pork and beef vendors at only half the
fret tax. He looked cheerful--even
hsppy-for no thought of veto
. had up to that time darkened his heart.
When IL was read Mr.. Barter moved its
passage, saying: al want the butchers 10
understand that there's nothing hogglsh
about this council, therefore the tax has
been put down to very low amount. /
never sausage muss over an ordinance
before, aud hope this will end it." But
a as! 1t didn't, as the veto below given will
show
THK VETO.
FORT WORTH, Tx Oct 49, 1896
To the Honorable Board OF Aldermen OF tie
! City of Fort Worth:
GENTlENIEN-At our meeting on the
18th inst. an ordinance was passed en-
titled IN ordinance licensing and re9uld.
ting butchers meat shops and meat ped.
, dlers, which return to your honorable
A body without my approval, my disap.
,, proval being baseo following
legal and other reasons:
|. The city has no power under the
general charter to 4 al occupation tax
on butchers or fresh meat peddlers, be-
cause none is levieG by the state, and
! this purported II. provided by
this ordinance is but an occupation tax
I lin disguise. The argument on this should
be that whatever 80 'aople by their state
constitution have forbidden or prohibit d
their state government from doing, can
not be done indirectly by municipal gov
. eminent. The state constitution has
? clearly placed limitations upon the
taxing power, not only of the state gov
eminent, but also on the government OF
counties, cities and towns See constitu-
ton.
2 fit were indeed license tax as It
purports to be, the council has no power
delegated by the city charter nor by the
constitution OF the State Of Texas, 10
levy even license tax against butch, rs,
but on the contrary, the charter itself
places the butchers outside the articles OF
the charter authorizing the levy Of license
tax
g. The amount OF tax provided Gin this
haip VII t1n nj IN 81. 81,
tax,is payable quarterly under the express
provisions of the statute, and this oIdi-
naLce requiring said tax TO be paid for an
entire year in advance Is In conflict with
the state law and therefore void.
4. And other reasons, this ordinance
would act as a prohibitory law
towards farmers who bring their
produce here, inasmuch as y
allows them to sell meat only by he
carcass--"w whole hog or none, "as 1t weru,
And, as very few, II any, consumers want
whole carcass at any one time, the
farmers would be compelled to sell to the
butchers at whatever price the butchers
wished to pay, which is ottentimes very
low, ana would therefore give the ent,re'
trade to an exclusive few, to the detli-
ment of many In other words,
this ordinance, If carried into effect,
would straddle upon the people OF our
county and city a monster monopoly,
which would ultimately be so powerful
that only the very few would be able 10
procure meat, in consequence OF high
prices, which is the natural result OF al
monopolies. This ordinance, If enforced,
would lin connection with other various
and similar causes drive from our city a
great amount OF our trade coming from
the farming aud producing classes, and
work very great detriment to our com
J, meIcisl interests by antsgonizing those
from whom we derive trade.
Men will naturally go where they are
wanted and where they are treated well
. and respected. Besides II is in my opin-
ion, unlawful for us to say in what guam
titles farmer or producer shall sell the
products Of his labor. do not think II