The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-23
See a Menace in the Pro-
posed State Saloon
License.
Claim it Will Be a Discrimina-
ton Against San
Francisco.
Has Been a Fruitful Topic of Discus.
sion Among the Members of
the C. P. A.

In the proposition of the CodesCommi
sion to impose State tax of $500 year
on every retail Iiquor-dealer or saloon
keeper, the majority of the local dealers
see an attempt to impose on San Fran
cisco more than its just proportion of the
burden of providing means to carry on the
State government.
1t has also had this further effect-it has
raised decided and considerable differ
ence of opinion among the City mem bers
of the California Protective Association,
the organization OF the wholesale and re-
tail liquor-dealers of the State. Some are
OF the opinion that a high license in this
City, while it would probably diminish
the number of saloons, would greatly tend
to improve the financial standing Of those
who remained in business.
President J. P. Edoff of the California
protective Association, while admitting
that the matter has been subject of dis
cussion among the members of the asso-
citation, declined to state what action, if
any, the association would take when the
matter was before the Legislature.
Another prominent member of the as
ISOLATION, however, went fully into the
details OF the question.
This recommendation of the Code
Commission, said this gentleman, sis
undoubtedly due to a suggestion made by
Governor Budd. Its object, as it appears
TO me, is to discriminate against San
Francisco IN the matter OF raising revenue
tor carrying on the State government.
"There are about 1900 saloons in the
State, and these now pay an average tax
of about 5000 year in county and munic-
ipaI licenses. This recommendation of
the Code Commission will impose an ad-
ditional burden OF $500 year on the
liquor-dealers of the State in the shape of
q State license. This would mean a reve-
nue. of $500, 900, or more than half the
amount necessary TO run the government
of the State.
''In the southern part OF the State the
county licenses are much higher than in
San Francisco. In San Diego, for instance,
the ak is $1,000 year and in Los Angeles
$780, and in Alameda County the saloon
license is $500, while there are additional
license fees for the cities of that county.
ION the other hand. the saloon license
in San Francisco is only $84 year. When
it is considered that more than 5000 OF the
L., 600 saloons in the State are in San Fran
cisco the injustice of the $500 State tax
will be Immediately perceived. 1t would
mean that San francisco would have to
bear nearly half of this tax. My idea
is that the liquor people Of the other coun-
ties will also oppose the State license, as
it will only tend to increase their ex-
penses.
Another point that has been fruitful of
much interesting discussion is the propa-
Bile effect of such tax by the State Ar
ticle XI section IL of the constitution, pro-
vides as follows:
Any county, city, town OF township may
make and enforce within It's limits all such
local, police. sanitary and other regulations
as are not in conflict with general laws.
ut is under this provision OF the consti-
tuition that counties and municipalities
impose saloon licenses, and it is claimed
by some that State license would vir-
tually make all other licenses unneces-
sary, as they would be in conflict with
general laws The result would be TO de-
prive many counties and towns of an i'm
portaHt source OF revenue. while in a pro-
hibltion county like Suffer the wav would
be open for any one who was willing to
pay the State license of $500 to open
saloon and thus defeat the will of the
peopie.
'On the other hand, it is held that the
State license would have only the same
status as a United States revenue license
it would give the individual procuring it
the right to do business only by and with
the consent of local authorities, and would
be secured at the purchasers risk