The San Francisco call., 1896-05-07
An Additional License Imposed
on Hundreds of Saloon
Men.
IT CANNOT NOW BE REVOKED.
The Supervisors introduced It Very
Quietly-A Mild Sensation When
1t Was Discovered.
OAKLAND OFFICE SAN Francisco CALL,l
QQQ RrnnArr-n1- MI

An ordinance goes into effect tomorrow
that Will increase the licences of over
three hundred saloons in cities and towns
of Alameda County $50 per quarter.
Although the result of the new law is
probably the result of an oversight on the
part of the person who drew it up, it is not
within the jurisdiction of the Supervisors
TO correct it, in view of the opinion rem
dered a few days ago by the District At
torney in the Borman liquor case.
For several years the liquor-license tax
has been collected by an appointed License
Collector, but recently the Supreme Court
decided this to be illegal. This caused the
board to pass new liquor license ordi-
nance, whereby it was to be made the
duty of the County Tax Collector to col
lect this tax. The board requested the
District Attorneys Office to prepare and
submit the new ordinance. After several
weeks the matter was reported back and
| adopted. in it the following sections ap-
pear;
Section 6. The license tax under this section
OF said ordinance shall be as follows: For
every person, firm or corporation engaged in
the business OF selling or giving away, or in
any manner furnishing in any saloon, bar,
stand, or in any other place OF business. or in
any public place in the county of Alameda,
dIiQ lOT every person, uTIn OF COTpOTdIlOH VINO
sells or offers to sell. or keeps for the purpose
OF sale, within the said county OF Alameda, any
| spirituous, malt, or fermented liquors or wines
or any admixture thereof, $50 per quar-
collector OF the county OF Alamo
da, at the Office of said tax collector,
at the Courthouse of the said county of Ala
media; provided that druggists and apotheca-
ries shall not be required TO obtain license
under the provisions OF this ordinance for fur
nishing liquors upon the written prescription
i OF q regularly licensed and registered DlVSl-
clan, such liquor in no case to be used or drunk
upon the premises, nor for supplying alcohol,
or preparations containing the same, for sci
entifc, mechanical, medical or medicinal pur-
poses; provided further, that no spirituous,
malt or vinous liquors shall be sold or fur
nlshed more than once on any one prescrip-
| tion OF such physician, and that no physician
shall prescribe any Intoxicating LIQUORS as a
beverage 10 any person addicted to the 1nordi-
nate use OF intoxicating liquors.
Section 16. Every person who shall, within
! the county OF Alameda, keep or assist in keep
! Ing any saloon, bar, store, dramshop, tippling-
| place, stand or any other place where any
| sp1rituous, malt or fermented liquors
/ wines, or any admixture thereof are sold or
| given away, without having first procured the
permit and license required therefor by the
| provisions of this ordinance or who shall sell
| or give away within the county of Alameda
any sDirituous, malt or ferInented liquors or
| wines, or any admixture thereof. without first
having procured the permit and license re-
quired by the provisions of this ordinance, or
after the same may have been revoked by the
Board OF Supervisors as in this ordinance pro-
vided, and any person who shall conduct or
carry on any business, occupation or calling
| for which q license tax is required by the pro-
visions OF this ordinance without having first
| procured the license required by this ordi-
nance, shall be deemed guilty of q misde-
meanor.
The document was big one and very
| little attention was paid TO the reading.
Several asked il it was any different from
| the old ordinance except in making the
collections duty of the County Tax Col
! lector ana they were assured that 1t was
not. The ordinance was adopted and
ordered published as required by law. 1t
| goes into effect Friday and at the same
time repeals all ordinances in conflict with
| its terms.
1t was. discovered to-day by interested
| liquor dealers, that in drawing the ordi-
nance the words ''outside of incorporated
cities and towns had been omitted.
| Whether this was by design or whether it
was done So as to collect license from all
] liquor dealers within the corporate limits
of the towns and cities of the county Is
not yet known, but it has created a sensa-
| ton.
The District Attorney, in an opinion to
the Supervisors regarding their power to
revoke a liquor license that it was con-
tended had been granted illegally, after
quoting the Supreme Court, says:
AS the granting of the license would be the
final act of the board upon the petition for
permit the jurisdiction of the board would be
exhausted upon such action being taken; con-
sequently, under the above rule, laid down by
our Supreme Court, it would be impossible for
the board to take further or any action in
this proceeding, aud the only remedy In the
premises would be an application to the cour IS
either 10 review by certiorari, or by an eqdit-
able action to set aside the proceedings of the
board.
| Now if he holds to that decision there
will be a mad set OF liquor-men. At pres
ent there are in the city of Oakland 900
| liquor establishments that will come under
the law, in Alameda %, Berkeley II, Hay
wards 20, San Leandro 16, Pleasanton 13
ana Livermore 27; total 1856. This would
be an annual income in addition 70 what
has heretofore been received by the county
from the liquor-men of about $40, 800.
On the other hand, if it was the inten-
tion of the Supervisors to impose a county
| license upon the city dealers they were
very careful to keep the matter profound
secret. At the time the ordinance was
passed Supervisor Church said to a re-
| porter: "There is no change in the ordi-
nance whatever except the provision to
provide for their collection" Supervisors
Pelouze and Johnson made similar state
| ments.
LIBRARY AFFAIRS.