The Taney County republican. (Forsyth, Mo.) 1895-1992, 1909-06-17

excise officials had the Democrats ap.
feared willing to grant home rule.
When it was put up TO them &c
vote for home rule for the cities they
demanded a radical change in the
) relation of the cities to the state
change which they knew could not be
approved by the governor or become
acceptable to the cities. They have
never favored home rule, have never
granted if and never will, unless they
come to regard it as a matter of party
expediency.
HIGH LICENSE POSSIBLE.
Governor Hadley has asked the ex
else commissioner in ST. Louis to levy
an additional tax of 500 year on
each saloon license granted in that
city and the commissioner will do so.
He has the same right as a county
court to determine what shall be the
amount Of tax for state purposes TO
be levied on dramshop license granted
within that city, the law fixing the
minimum at 5000 year, the amount
heretofore collected, and the maximum
at S400. The excise commissioner
could levy the maximum amount but
a raise of 500 year at this time was
thought to be sufficient. The county
courts Of the state have been asked
to add 500 q year to the dramshop
licenses Tor state purposes and some
Of them will doubtless do so.
Il is not generally known that the
county courts can Lut a high
license on saloons. Under the law
they can collect s4O0 2 year for the
state and $500 for the county, OF a
total of $1,000 a year; and on top of
that amount the town or city can levy
an additional tax of any amount. Some
of the larger towns OF the state collect
from 81, 900 to s2,500a year from each
saloon for town or city purposes. The
St. Louis saloons do not pay q county
tax, as that city is not in a county.
They only pay the city tax of $500
and the state tax of $500, which has
just been increased to $500. . The
Kansas City saloons pay $500
to the county OF Jackson and
$500 to the state. The St. Joseph
saloons pay $1,000 q year, of which
the county OF Buchanan gets $3.50, the
city $500 and the state only $50. St.
Joseph claims exemption from the state
dramshop law under provisions of its
charter.
It is the policy of Governor Hadley
not only to make the saloons obey the
laws governing them but TO have them
pay al the courts will assess against
them toward the expenses Of state and
local government Democratic news
papers have charged that he is dis
posed to favor the brewers and the
LIQUOR interests as against the temper
ance people. There is not word of
truth in it. He is against statewide
prohibition and has made no secret Of
that fact, but he is firmly committed
to the policy of enforcing all laws in
tended to regulate the liquor traffic
and to improve such laws when found
defective and to make officials who
refuse to enforce the liquor and saloon
laws do their duty or quit Office. He
is decidedly against the influence OF
of brewers and saloons in politics ex-
cept as exerted by other citizens; in
other words, he resents the policy ot
brewers and saloonists who get into
politics to advance their business in
terests, and he has said that much over
and over again. No brewer or hquo'
dealer or liquor maker can dictate tc
our governor or hinder or deter him
one moment in any policy or improve
ment he may wish to undertake In
relation to the liquor traffic; and he IS
not under obligations to any man in
lterested in the manufacture or sale O
intoxicating liquors, any statement tc
the contrary Notwithstanding. He be-
lieves in making the saloons pay E
high license and in compelling al
saloon keepers to obey the laws; and
he is against any partnership Or com
bination giving brewers control oi
saloons. In short, he IS against any
aggression in politics or the part O
men engaged IN a business which the
state must regulate. His speeches and
his record confirm this statement.