Los Angeles herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1900-1911, 1907-08-13

personally. and is unable to see the license re-
ceipt although he has demanded the same
In this connection would refer you to a
section OF the ordinance which requires every
license posted and exhibited while in force in
some conspicuous part of ones place of bust
ness, and that in those cases where party
having license shall have no place OF BUSH
ness he shall carry the same with him at
all times and produce the same when required,
and that violation of this provision is
misdemeanor punishable by fine and imprison-
ment
This whole matter is SO unsatisfactory that
would ask for the immediate appointment of
commission to investigate it.
Whatever may be the equities of the case,
think 1t should be understood once and for all
that no officer deputy of this city has any
authority to repeal any ordinance of the city
council in whole or in part, and that from now
on definite orders should be given to every
deputy to enforce the law in its entirety with
out any adjustments on his part
Street Cars
In this department quarterly license Of sc. %
a for the average number of street cars
operated each day during the preceding three
months is supposed to be levied.
On investigation 1 find that about one-third
of the interurban operated on the streets
of the city of Los Angeles pay the license,
That the railroad companies. when making
their statement make an allowance to them
selves for the trackage outside of the city
limits and also for the number of cars actually
in in excess of a certain time schedule
which they have.
BY means of this allowance the number of
cars in actual operation in day is cut down
about Go per cent. In other words, they base
the number of cars upon the number In the
city at any time. with further reduction
for trackage outside of the city limits
In other words. they pay on the theoretical
number Of cars necessary to operate sched-
ule of a certain hour during the day.
II one car could run for twentyfour hours
each day the number that they are operating
would of course be reduced about 80 per cent
The fact that they use more than one car on
a certain run does not enter into their calcula-
tons.
The crux of the contention is this: claim
that they should pay license on the average
number of street operated each day, which
is the exact wording. of the ordinance, but they
claim that they should pay a theoretical
basis which benefits them to the extent of
about Go per cent.
Dunn and Mathews Agreed
understand that about year ago an in
vestigation was made into this matter and
that Mr. Mathews, then city attorney. and w.
f. Dunn, representing the Huntington inter-
ests decided to accept the railway contentious
and that the tax has been levied on this basis
since that time.
AS a concrete example, 1 would state that the
Los Angeles Pacific operate in this city an av-
erage of eighty-one cars per day. and that they
paying on a basis of twenty-eight rms
information was readily given us by the Los
Angeles Pacific. who allowed us an examina-
ton of their books.
The Huntington interests, however, as rep
resented by Mr.. Dunn, refuse to allow to
gather the information from their books, ex-
cept in so far as 1t related to a substantiation
of the figures which they presented as the basis
of payment.
Whatever may be the equities of the case.
It seems to me that the wording of the or
dinance is very plain and that 1t must be en-
forced repealed
Let me say that in case of the repeal or
change of any ordinance relating to licenses
a saving clause be inserted. excepting from
the new ordinance all pending suits and debts
under the ordinance due to the city
In conclusion, let say that we have
really only just started on our work Of in
vestgation
That before we get through every license
ordinance of the city will be rigidly investi-
gated in all its details.