The record-union., 1897-05-11

Trustees a communication from ROBERT
t. Devlin was read stating that sew
eral citizens had consulted him in re-
lation to the new license ordinance, and
on examination he doubted if it would
stand a test, on account of the discrim-
ination made between wholesale and
retail dealers. The communication was
as follows:
Sacramento May :, 1891.
To the Honorable Board of Trustees
of the City of observation-disclosures
Some of the retail merchants Of the
city of Sacramento have consulted me
in reference to ordinance No. 462,
passed by your body on March -, 1885,
and desired me to present for your
consideration the following:
These merchants desire to comply in
every respect with the ordinances OF
the city of Sacramento, and do not wish
to be put in the attitude of contesung
any legitimate tax or license imposed
upon them. The ordinance passed by
your body, perhaps inadvertently,
makes an unjust discrimination
against certain modes of conducting
business, which / am satisfied will not
stand the test of the courts. The Or
dinance makes a distinction not war
ranted by any legal reason between
merchants conducting wholesale busi-
ness and those conducting a retail busl-
ness.
The ordinance does not define what
constitutes a retail business, nor what
constitutes a wholesale business; and
| in that respect at least 1t is vague,
indefinite and uncertain. But assum-
ing that retail business and wholesale
business were both defined so that 1t
might be accurately known from the
ordinance under which class any par
ticular kind of business might come,
still the ordinance makes a dlStlnctlon
not warranted by the charter between
| those carrying on a wholesale trade
and a retail trade in the same class
of goods
The city charter has prescribed the
mode in which licenses shall be levied
1t provides in Section %, Subdivision
10 of the charter, taht the Board OF
Trustees may, among other things, nix
and collect license tax upon all lawful
professions, trades or business not
heretofore specified, having regard
in such case to the amount of business
ton thus licensed
The ordinance in question is in direct
violation of this provision Of the char
ter It undertakes to provide that II
a man is carrying on certain speci-
fed business by retail, and his business
amounts to 800 per quarter he pays
| a specified license If he conducts the
very same class of business by whole
4
The same observation applies to the
| classification from S1OO to 5000 and
also the classification from 5000 to
81 .0O0 In each of these three instances
! a retailer is compelled to pay a license,
while wholesaler is exempted. When
| the sales amount TO more than Sl,OUo
for the very same class of goods the
ordinance provides that if they are sold
by retail the rate shall be SO per quar-
ter, and if conducted by wholesale two
thirds less.
| The ordinance therefore conflicts with
the section referred to, in that the Ii
cense is not fixed with regard to the
amount of business done by each per-
| son. firm or association.
| Il any particular merchant is carry
| ing on a business he ought to pay the
same tax no more nor less than other
persons carrying on the same business,
| having regard, in the language Of the
! charter to the amount of business done
by him.
In one case that came before our Su-
preme Court, where it was sought to
make a distinction between persons do
! ing business in the city and those liv-
ing outside, the court said:
IF this kind of discrimination be le-
| gitimate and valid there is no reason
why a merchant having his goods in
| warehouse on particular street
might not be required to pay license
! of $4,000 while another merchant do
ing the same kind of business in the
same city. with his goods stored in
another street. would be required to
pay only SO"
You will observe that this language
of the Supreme Court applies with spe-
cial force to the ordinance in question.
| If the Board of Trustees can declare
that if a man sells in one-pound pack
| ages or pound packages, or 100
pound packages. he shall pay a differ
ent license from another person selling
the same goods in another form, il
might as we'll make a distinction be-
tween merchants doing business on diff
| ferent streets.
1t is believed that this matter can
be adjusted both with justice to the
city of Sacramento and to those who
are engaged in trade in the city. There
can be. I am satisfied. no desire on the
part of your board to harass any par
ticular merchant doing business in the
| ~ - to n
him burdens not authorized by law. If
the ordinance in question should be de-
feated in court it would result in loss
TO the city of so much revenue during
the time that the ordinance was under
consideration before final determination
as to its validity had been reached.
These merchants, while they conduct
their business principally by retail do
not desire to be understood as antag-
onizing the wholesale merchants. They
simply desire that the rights guaran-
teed to them by the laws and Constitu-
ton of this State. and by the charter
under which you act, should be recog
nized and protected.
In their behalf I suggest and request
that your board take this matter up
at some early day, when the matter
may be fully discussed, and when the
imperfections of the present ordinance
may be more fully explained.
l am satisfied if I can convice you
that an injustice has been done, and
that the present ordinance is invalid
you will take steps to correct the err
ror If. on the other hand, we should
be wrong in the position we take. that
fact should be known
If your board will take the question