The record-union., 1897-03-09
THB LICENSE REGULATIONS.
1 Veto Message Against the New 0Tdi-
nance.
Mayor Hubbard Believes That Its
Provisions Could Not be
Enforced.

approval, Ordinance No. =, entitled
An Ordinance amending Sections 8
and IA of Ordinance No. 43O, entitled
An ordinance relating to and regulat-
ing business, trades and professions in
the city of Sacramento, providing a
license for the management, operation
and conducting the same and provid-
ing for the violation of the provisions
thereof" My reasons for disapprov-
ing said ordinance are as follows:
First-By Section I of the proposed
ordinance, Section S of Ordinance 430
is amended so that all business houses
are required to render a sworn state
ment of their sales. The amendment
provides that each firm, corporation or
person shall render a sworn statement
in writing to the City Collector s.
| Of the average amount of the previous
receipts of sales made, or business done
| by such person, firm or corporation, re-
| spectively, which statement shall de-
| termine the amount for which such Ii
| cense shall be issued or renewed" The
section which is sought to be amended
! by the proposed ordinance provided
| that such sworn statement should be
| rendered of sales made or business
| done during three months next pre-
| ceding the expiration of the last IL
cense.'
| The original section, therefore, is
| plain and unambiguous. The amend
ment simply provides that statement
| shall be made of the previous receipts
of the business house. The query oc-
ours naturally-what this means, what
previous receipts? For the previous
| day, week, month or year, or for the
| previous five years? 1t does not desig-
| nate how long period the statement
shall cover, nor what period. A mer-
chant could legally comply with this
| ordinance by rendering to the City
Collector statement of his receipts
for the three worst days at any time
| previous to the date of the statement
| or he might comply with the ordinance
| by rendering a statement for a week in
| the year Immediately preceding or a
statement for week two years prior to
the making of the statement The
amendment, therefore, destroys the en-
tire force OF that part of Ordinance 130
wherein statements are required of
merchants, and, under the amendment,
1t seems to me the Collector would be
forced to accept practically any state
nent that might be presented to him.
This would really nullify the entire or
dinance and render it practically inop-
erative The statement, you will OBJ
serve, is to determine the amount OF
license to be paid by the merchant, and
it is, therefore, put within the power of
a merchant to determine, under this
proposed ordinance. by his very worst
6aVG' Sa1oS fhn Icanca that chall ha
paid to the city.
Second-The second objection goes
properly more to the policy of the ordi-
nance than anything else. You will OBJ
serve that the ordinance requires one
rate for the retailer and another for the
wholesaler. The retailer pays just three
times as much license under this ordi-
nance as the wholesaler. / am informed
that, while the gross profits of the re-
taller are much larger than the gross
profits of the wholesaler yet the cost of
transacting business and selling goods
is much greater to retailers than
to wholesalers, and that the
net profit each makes is about
equal If anything, the net profit of
the wholesaler is greater than that Of
the retailer If this be 80, it certainly is
unjust and inequitable that a retailer
should be required to pay three times
the license that is required Of a whole
saler. AS a matter Of public policy and
pure justice, therefore, upon the as
sumption herein set forth, the ordinance
should not become a law. The old ordi-
nance that is sought to be amended APP
parently recognized the fact that the
= oil l,o, rI,o
be the same, and made no distinction
between wholesalers and retailers. ! be-
lieve that the city has the right to
classify these businesses for the purpose
of licensing into whole sale and retail, and
to require different amounts from each,
and, for that reason, / have promised
this objection with the statement that
the objection is one to the policy of the
ordinance rather than to it's legality. 1t
certainly is not justice to leave prac
tically unfettered a wholesale business,
and to say to a retail dealer, with less
capital involved and whose existence is
more precarious, that because his busi-
ness is not so extensive as his more for
tunate neighbor and because he is only
a retailer, he must be mulcted in three
times the amount for the privilege of
living in the city of Sacramento, that his
wealthier neighbor is.
Third-Subdivision three of the pro-
posed ordinance provides that any
wholesale merchant who shall retail
goods, etc. in any amount shall pay the
license fixed for transacting a retail
business in accordance with retail sales,
in addition to the wholesale license here
IA ,l,.,,
ton. it means that any wholesale house
that sells in any amount by retail, whe
ther 1t be barrel of sugar, a box of ci
gars or any other article, shall pay two
! licenses, one upon the amount of its
sales as a wholesale house, and the
other upon the amount of its sales by re-
tail. Clearly this provision never would
be enforced, and while ii may be per-
fectly legal, ii seems to me absurd to
cumber the statute books of this city
with an ordinance which we know. so
far as this provision is concerned, will
be dead letter. Wholesale houses
would have to keep two sets of books,
and l do not believe they would do 1t.
IT is a fact we'll known to all of us,
think, that the wholesale houses of this
city DO more or less retail business, and
| presume it would be utterly impossible
for any wholesale house to determine
just how much of its sales were made by
retail, and even were the ordinance en-
deavored to be enforced, it clearly would
not be scomplied with. Respectfully
submitted. c. II. HUBBARD, Mayor.
Devine moved that the ordinance be
referred TO the Chairman of the Special
License Committee, to be amended in