The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-01-08
STATE LICENSE
NOT IN FAVOR
Liquor Men Are Opposed
to Governor Budd's
Recommendation.
1t Is Claimed That the State
Has No Power to Pass Any
Revenue Law.
G neral Opinion Among the Whole
salers That the Trade Is Taxed
ALI It Can Stand.

Governor Budd's recommendation for
the imposition of license tax OF 500
year on every saloon in the State does not
meet with the approval of the wholesale
dealers in wines, beers and liquors.
J. P. Edoff. president of the California
Protective Association and mem Der of
the firm of Dallemand & Co., speaking of
the portion of the Governors message
which relates to this subject, said:
''This is the first time that an executive
OF this State has in his message recognized
the fact that there was traffic of this
kind.
Two years ago the California Protec-
tive Association tried TO have the State
Legislature recognize the traffic by adopt
ing the so-called maximum license bill.
The Senate Judiciary COMMITTEES, how
ever, refused to recommend the passage OF
the measure on the ground that it would
be a recognition of the traffic. But it
seems the Governor has given the subject
matter more tn ought than the judiciary
Committee did. He thinks that the traffic
ought 10 be recognized by the esta blish-
ment of an excise commission, somewhat
OH the lines of the Raines act OF New
York, but in q modified form.
II think that there is q diversity OF
opinion among the wholesale dealers OF
the State in regard to the expe0iency OF
attem pting anything of this kiud. be-
lieve that the majority of the wholesale
trade thinks the trade is already taxed
heavily enough by the local authorities,
and that any additional tax will be
burden that the trade cannot stand.
ION the other hand some houses believe
the true remedy for existing evils, If there
are any evils, lies in high License. Ii the
Governors recommendation is carried out
hy the adoption of he proposed bill OF the
Code Commission, which provides for an
annual license of $3.50, it would mean that
the liquor dealers of San Francisco would
have 10 pay 1884 per year, those of Oak
land 500, Alameda $500, Los Angeles $1050
and san Diego $500.
''Tne Governor lays great stress by
means OF ia buIation on the fact that one
third of the liquor-dealers of the State
escape paving a license, but oyerlooks the
fact that he has not any OF the compila-
tons of cities like Oakland and other in
corporated towns in counties where the
County Boards of Supervisors do not exact
license and where the municipality does.
If he had taken the trouble to get from
paid them l feel satisfied that lie would
find that his figures of one-third would be
incoi rect.
Again, many drugstores and restau-
rants, as well as hotels, especially in
Southern California, do not pay city or
county license, but are compelled by the
laws of the United States to take out an
internal-revenue license.
at is also true that in the CITY of San
Francisco there are at least 1900 restau-
rants which sell beer and wine, but do rot
sell whisky, and which are compelled by
the United States laws to take out an in
ternal-revenue license.
Therefore l am inclined to think that
if the Governor had taken up the subject
thoroughly he would have ascertained
that one third of the dealers in liquors
who pay license to the United States do
not need to pay any to any of the various
counties and cities.
"I do not believe that any law passed bv
the Legislature of the State, IN accordance
with the constitution, would have the
effect OF accomplishing the result that the
Governor makes mention of; that is to
say, an increase OF the revenues of the
State at the expense of the liquor traffic.
Ever since the adoption of the present
constitution the right OF local self-govern-
ment in regard to sanitary and poIics mat
tiers, as well as the right of issuing licenses,
has been recognized as resting in the va
rious counties and municipalities, as can
be seen by reference to section Ii of arti-
Gle X of the constitution.
F. Frederick Plagemann of Siebe Bros.
& Pagemann said: "The proposition is
an outrage. The liquor-dealers are taxed
out OF their boots now. In some counties
of this State the license is already almost
prohibitive. There are already three IL
cense taxes imposed on the lquor-dealers,
the Federal. the county and the munich
pal. Now Budd proposes 10 add fourth.
He is the last man that ought to advocate
any such thing and this is the last State
in the Union where the law makers ought
TO set their faces against the liquor trade.
Grape-growing and wine and brandy man.
u!acture form the most important indus
tries in the State, and they should be en-
couraged instead of being taxed out oil ex-
stence. No fair-minded man would think
of advocating the placing of any addi-
tional burdens on the men engaged In
these lines. All these movements are
simply on the lines OF temperance move
ments and are opposed to the best inter-
ests OF the State. However, there is no
use talking about it, for no such bill will
pass. 1t is already a dead letter. 1 have
talked with number of liquor men about
1t and they simply say 1t will never be-
come law"
Joseph l. Dimond said: "This is SIM
ply cinch bill, or will be used for cincli-
bill purposes. The legislators will en-
ploy this recommendation of Budd's as a
excuse for presenting bill TO load more
taxes on the liquor men. There will
probably be show OF interest in the
thing, and it will be referred 10 commit
tee, and then il will devolve upon the
whisky men TO buy the committee. That
is what il will be for, and that is what the
liquor men Will be expected 10 do"
II wouldn't give 'em so much as chew
of tobacco" said friend OF Dimond's, en-
gagged in the sa me trade, standing by.
"That is all very WE'LL" said d mond;
you are a distilier's agent and so prob
ably would have to. But the wholesalers
will have to put up-that's all there is
about it. l don't know whether Budd is
in on this thing or not, but | know that
all that will come of his recommendation
is just what ] say"
John Spruance of Spruance & Stanley
said: 81 haven't looked into the matter
and don't know just what is intended IN
the recommendation of the Governor, but
if ii is the purpose TO make a general
State license and take the power of fixing
licenses odt of the hands OF Boards OF
Supervisors and Town Councils I am in
favor OF it. 1t would be a good thing.
The rate of license is very uneven through
out the State. In some places the license