The state rights democrat. [volume] (Albany, Linn County, Oregon) 1865-1900, 1899-05-12
ROYAL ssx"rs SS;;;Ss
" ABSOLUTELY Pure
Makes the food more delicious and wholesome
A Timely Veto.

Mayor Burkhsrt last evening fled his
veto OF the tax ordinance, as foIlogs:
To the Honorable Ccmmoa Council 8.
the City of Albany, oregon:
GENTLEMAN 81 herewith return ordin-
anee bill No. 35l, being ordinance No.
332, as passed by the common counci.
april 25, 1888, entitled an ordinance to
license and regulate business, trades, oc-
cupations and professions in the city Of
Albany, Oregon. and other purposes.
without my approval.
After mature consideration Of tie
terms OF this ordinance, az view IL, il
10 IN effect a denial Of equal justice and
10 subject % be applied and Administered
hv public authority With an UNEQUAL
hand 30 as 10 practically TO make unjust
and illegal discrimination between per-
sons in similar trades and eEoeations
material TO their rights.
The power vested in a municipal cor
poration eIIouId, sc lar az practicable, he
exercised by ordinances general in their
nature and impartial IN their operations,
and special and unwsrranted dIscriminS-
ton, or unjust or oppressive interference
IN particular cAses should not be allowed.
An ordinance cannot be legally enact
ed which contTayenes a common right,
unless the power 10 do so be plainly cor
Tered by valid and competent legfsIG-
tive grant. and take il 10 be genera.
rule that . municipal corporation can
pase no ordinance ghieh conflicts With
Irs charter, or any generals tAtute il force.
Sor can il By virtue OF Its incidental
powers OF under any general grant Of zu-
tboF1fy, adopt IzEs which infringe the
ipIrt or are repugnant to the laws under
which il was created.
Section % Article /, OF the state con-
stitution, provides: That no lzE shzII
be passed granting to anF citizen, or
ciase of cilizens. privileges or immGnit-
lee, which, upon the tame terms, shall
not equally belong TO all citizens -
Section 81, came article, sso provides:
That no tax or duly EhzII be imposed
withou: the consent Of the people OF
Their representatives. and al taxation
shalI be equal and uniform"
The ordinance az passed preScribes one
rule for one citizen and one for his neIgb-
Dor. both engaged IN common employ
ment- Il taxes the watchmsker and ex-
tailor and does net the blacksmith,
butcher or baker; iE singles out paTtie-
ular individuals and subjects them 10
peciAl butden-
In other words II provides that q eer-
tain class of individuals engaged in
particular trade OF occupation, shall be
Subject 20 pay . license, and exeupfs or
does not include other persons, who are
engaged in certain trades Or czllIuEz
almost Identical With those included,
and which l., in eject. extending to q
certain class OF citizens privilege and
an immunity, which is nos and canzof
under iEs terms be enjoyed by any other
class OF citizens. IL this i true, then it
Is contrary to the sacEion CT ths coassI-
tution above cited AMI therefore void.
Again, the ordinance trznsseuds the
licensing power and m poSes : tar. The
poEer to license and regulate particular
branches Of business or trades i usually
= police power; bus when Iicense Eees OF
exzctions are plsiulv imposed for the soc
Dr. main purpose Of raising revenues.
they are, in effect, taxes.
There Is nothing IN the emitting elSu=e
N This ordinance 10 warrant The impos-
sion oi tax.
Justice Deadly in tie district court of
the United States for the District Gi 0=-
=gon Ia passing upon the Lz1n6rv license
cAses reported IN - Fed Rep, 70I there
held, "that the power granted 70 the city
neludes tbs power ito license" Is .
means TO tnas end but that does not ia-
4nde the power to tax the business; and
iha' $50 per year a. license vas man
festly 50 far in excess OF what vas Hec-
sssary or proper for the purpose, that il
must De considered tax, ard the oFCiin-
snce imposing it was therefore void
Ii Is plain then from this statement.
hat persons engaged IN she same CON-
non class Of bushes, trades and employ
rent, are subject to different rsttTiCt-
ous. are granted different privileges an.
Ter the came conditions, and believing
such discrimination 10 be unjust, and
to the best interests Of the
aud that such an ordinance
.oald not be legally enforced, therefore
Teto the Ordinance Bill.
c. .. RCKKRkRF, MaFc-.