The Springdale news., 1889-03-22
THAT OCCUPATION TAX.
What Number of Leading Business Men Have 10 Say On the
 Subject.
The Action of the City Council Severely Condemned
 By Some, While By Others lis Rppauded.

The City Council recently passed what Is known as the "Occupation License Ordinancc.' As some ot our readers are probably not in- formed as to the purposes and inten- tions of the ordinance, we take from it the following synopsis that they may understand it clearly:
 It provides that the proprietors of every general merchandise or hardware store, doin5 I business of over 5000 per year shall be taxed 5 % per year, and those do ing business under S5,00O per year, $500; the proprletors of each grocery store, drug store, lumber yard, furniture store, printing of fee, restaurant feed store, real es- tate agency and bank $500 per year; each flouring mill, hotel, liv- cry, feed or sale stable $500 per year; each dray or job wagon sl0 per year; each canning factory, wolien mill, blaming mill, bakery, iewelry store, each harness shop s2 per year; each picture gallery, mil linery store, shoe shop, tin shop, barber shop, candy factory, wagon shop, carpenter shop, blacksmith shop and each produce buyer and shipper, each plumber and maebin- ists Sl % per year; each butcher shop sl2.o0 per year.
 The moneys received and paid into the treasury on any of the above mentioned privileges shall be set aside as a special fund, 10 be used only in approving and bnild ing sidewalks.
 Section 23 fthe ordinance states that whoever engages in any busi- ness mentioned above without first paying the tax, shall be fined any sum not exceeding Sl0.
 The ordinance has not been sign ea by the Mayor or published yet, consequently t isn't law, but as so much lrtercst was being man. ifested over it T NEWS reporter h. terviewed a number ofbusiness men yesterday for the purpose of aseef- tanning how they felt in regard to the matter Their replies will be found below.
 B. F. Deaver: "It is q grand lm- position on the merchants, from the fact that they are called on more than anyone else for charitable pur- poses, and think they ne under no more obligations to build sidewalks than other property holders
 II. A. Wagner: 'I don't really object to it. We hay. to have some source of revenue to build side walks
 Sam Wright: You bet, l am in favor of i" !"
 c, NJ. Gabbert: "I am opposed to it. Am willing to pay one tax but don't believe we ought to pay two"
 W. Y. Winton: q don't regard 1t as the proper thing. There is no justice Tn taxing business men when property holders are exempt"
 II. A. Daily: l haven anything to y. fit becomes a law will snbmit and if not I won't kick
 B. |. Pollock; "I think it is ar imposition on the busienes men, that's just what I think about it.
 George Kennan: q think every body ought to build their own side walks"
 D. A. White: "I aint going to pay it, that's all e'
 John $. Henson: q think 1t is | very good thing. It don't amount to much on each man, but will helI the town heap"
 Robt Orr: .'l won't pay it unless I have to.
 A Warren; "Tm net going tc pay any occupation tax! Gooc God, neyor heard ofsuch thing 1!
 Miss Mary Hodges: Il think l rather rldiculous.'
 James Dodson: "I don't think il It is right. l am ready any time, i thought proper and right to levy ! special tax, but don't believe tax ought to be imposed on the busin ess men alone" Mir. Dodson alse doubts the constitutionality of the