The record-union., 1896-04-24
UNION, FRIDAY APRIL "a,

said the court, is in excess of the
granted powers of the Trustees, and
therefore the ordinance was valueless.
There can be no question IN the mind
of any unbiased person that this con-
struction is the simple, logical and i'm
pregnable Interpretation Of the law.
The court could have no more justly
held otherwise than it could have en-
acted law. 1t is the common sense Of
the charter, and that is all there is
to it, Notwithstanding harsh and yad-
verse criticisms made of the decision.
Now let us see what has been done in
the Photographic case. Here there is
no attempt to prohibit, but simply to
regulate, and that is within the province
fixed an arbitrary figure for the license
without regard to the amount of busi-
ness done," as the charter directs. This
leaves an open joint in the armor of the
ordinance, and though minor one, it
may prove a fatal one.
The ordinance attempts to crush out
the business of disposing of pictures by
charging for the frames only, a business
engaged in by itinerants mainly, and
which is peddling and hawking pure
and simple But the Trustees appear
in their haste to have overlooked the
fact that this provision of the ordinance
will be easily evaded by these vendors.
They will distribute their price between
frame and picture, give" nothing
away, and thus escape the ordinance.
So, too the board appears to have
dealt, let us hope unwittingly, a blow in
the direction of home artists who make
crayon, charcoal, OIL water-color and
other pictures especially portraits, upon
the basis of sun prints or faint photo
graphs. Every pupil in the School Of
Design is in the business of selling the
product of his or her skill, and in many
cases photography enters into the work
They retouch, enlarge, color in oil and
water-colors, ETC., and thus secure
means to continue their studies; and
so, too, the teachers in the School Of
Design and many artists throughout
the city, a number of them graduates of
the School of Design which sits in the
city's Art Gallery, sell pictures as a
business, and solicit the making Of
them as livelihood, the basis of which
is Photographic process.
1t cannot be that the Trustees in
tended to prohibit these worthy people
from following a laudable vocation, to
which we educate them. Yet assuredly
if the ordinance applies to them, and it
may have that construction, the license
tax imposed is simply prohibitory, as,
indeed, any license tax would be. We
do not believe that there is a city in the
world where the artist is required to
pay a license, no matter what process
he uses in producing his work.
There is also to be considered the
class of smaller resident photographers,
TO whom the tax imposed means ruin.
Why may not a small license tax be
DIONlQGQ 1OT IGSlUGUIS anu IdApdy
and heavier and compensating one for
itinerants and foreign concerns solicit
ing and underwriting?
The aim of the Trustees is well under
stood, and there is not only no objection
to 1t, but it should be commended; but
there is necessity that greater care be
had in framing ordinances necessary to
compel contribution to the common
fund for the support of the city govern
ment by those who come in as timer
ants and peddlers and others who pay
no taxes, have no fixed place of busi-
ness, and who, contributing nothing to
the community by their arts or work,
prevent those legitimately and regu-
larly engaged in business from conduct
ing it, and who do contribute to COM
munity support. Haste in the passage
of laws usually results just as in these
two cases herein recited, namely, in the
production of weak and faulty and un-
just, and, in some respects, cruel enact
ments.