The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1900-02-06
1T is AND is NOT.
City Council Again Juggles
With License Ordinance.
Prnvisinns Acraed Cnnn and
Provisions Agreed Upon and
Then Killed as a Whole.
AN EXCITING DEBATE.
Members Exchange Views on
What Should Be Taxed.
Cuban ChfckenpOx a Heavy
Burden on City.

nor and unimportant provisions of a
proposed license ordinance last night, |
the city council decided that it didn't |
want a license ordinance anyway, and |
after it's 81 sections had been carefully |
considered and passed it was killed on |
final passage.
A license ordinance was passed sew
eral weeks ago. but before Mayor Drew
signed it a protest came In from parties
who claimed they We're injured by it,
and a motion to reconsider it was pass
ed. 1t was then laid over from time TO
time until it finally died on the calen-
dar.
Saturday evening a number of the
councilmen met with City Attorney
Bird and had him redraft the ordi-
nance, leaving out the Objectionable
features of the old ordinance. The great
objection to the old one was that it
placed a tax on every light delivery
wagon run by every merchant in the
city. The intention of the ordinance
had been to tax vehicles which are the
most wearing on the streets, such as
heavy draft wagons, in order to compel
them to pay their share towards re-
pairing the streets which they wore out.
The merchants claimed they should not
be taxed for the light delivery wagons
the same as heavier wagons, and they
were accordingly excluded from the
new ordinance.
The first objection to the proposed or
dinance after it had been presented to
the council last evening was offered to
the tax of $25 a year on mercantile
agencies This was intended to catch
not only the Dun Mercantile agency
which maintains an office in Topeka, but
also all attorneys who act as agents for
other mercantile agencies.
The objection that was urged against
the tax on these agencies was that it
would operate only against the Dun
| agency, while the others which main
tanned no offices in Topeka would es-
cape, A protest to the tax, signed by a
number of the leading business firms of
the city, was presented, stating that the
Dun agency had been persuaded to To-
cate an office in Topeka in 1888, and it
| has always been maintained at a loss.
| G. S. Downing, the local manager of the
| Dun agency, also protested against the
tax. but it was finally passed by vote
| of to 4.
The next disagreement was over the
method of taxing the coal dealers. The
| section as introduced provided that
| each dealer having scales of his own
should pay a license of $40 a year, but
| If he does his weighing on city scales
he shall pay a tax of s. per year. In
| addition each dealer should pay $3.50
| for each one horse wagon he used, IS
| for each two horse wagon, $3.50 for
three horse, and $40 for four horse
| wagons.
| ought to be placed on the wholesale
/ dealer than on the local coal merchant
| but Councilman Hughes said that the
! wholesale dealers might not use the
! streets at all, while the local merchants
| used them a great deal and should be
made to pay for them.
| Mr.. Nettels then asked City Attorney
| Bird whether the tax would be applied
TO wagons owned by the coal dealers or
to those hired by them also. City At
torney Bird said it would apply only to
those owned by the dealers, as the
! teamsterS would have to pay a license
on their own wagons and this would
entitle them to haul coal for any dealer
without the payment of an additional
tax Mr.. Nettels thought this was
| wrong; he argued that the dealers
ought to pay the tax instead of the
man who did the hauling. Councilman
I Hughes, on the other hand, argued that
a dealer might nave one wagon run
ming one day and ten the next, SO that
/ it would be impossible to tax the deal
ers for the wagons which they en-
| plOyed.
Mr.. Nettels won his point temporarily
| after half hours discussion and the
section was killed altogether, but it was
| afterwards reconsidered and Council
| man Warner was given the task of
| getting up a new section. He wound up
| with a section exactly like the first ex-
cept that the tax was increased SIS on
| each class of scales but remained the
same as to wagons. The fight was
| then renewed and the section was final
ly adopted.
When the ordinance was finally ready
| to be passed on as a whole it was dis
! covered that the drayage wagons of
| wholesale and packing houses had
| been omitted. Councilman Hughes also
| insisted that a tax ought to be placed
! on beer wagons. A sudden dissatisfac-
| ton with the ordinance developed and
it only received five affirmative votes,
! when seven were necessary to pass it.
| Nearly every councilman explained his
! vote. Councilman Blossom said he had
been opposed to it all the way through.
Councilman Morgan said the express
men wanted to be taxed as a matter of
| protection from outsiders. but the or
/ dinance did not seem right in other par
ticularS and he voted no. Councilman
! Nettels said he believed in an Occupa-
ton tax, but this ordinance was not
! just and he voted no. Councilman
! Clancy said that he had originally
| been in favor of the license ordinance
| to raise revenue, but since that time
| the poll tax ordinance had been passed
! which would raise $4,000 a year, and
| thought that sufficient. He thought
! the license ordinance was not to be
resurrected, and he voted no. Mr.. Ben
son also voted no.
Those voting in the Affirmative were
| Elliott, Burgess, Warner, Roundtree
and Hughes. Mr., Warner explained