Los Angeles herald., 1910-03-16

UnqueStiOnaDly the SenJlIneht VI t,ii'
city today is that they want reguia-
tion and control of this traffic that
will make for a betterment of condl-
tions. l believe, and l know that
every other member of this councIi
believes, in temperance, and We al
have a strong feeling to minimize, as
far as possible, the evils surrounding
the liquor traffic. AS matter OF
principle, if it is wrong to increase the
license charged the saloons, 1t IS
equally wrong to charge their present
rate, or any other rate. 1t is equally
clear to my mind, and | believe II IS
to every citizen, that If we have free
sale of liquor in Los Angeles condl-
tions will be immeasurably worse. II
It is wrong, as a matter of principle,
to recognize that liquor selling exists
in this community, 1t is wrong to pass
any law regulating the traffic In
other words, we would have a wide
open town.
"If the licensing of the liquor traf-
fic is justiflable at all, it is proper that
the tax should be so adjusted as to be
fair to the dealers and to the city.
IF, upon this theory, an increase In
the license is proper, | feel that this
council, If it should give up revenues
that properly belong to the city for the
sake of influencing a future vote upon
prohibition or any other question, that
we would fail in our duty as public
officials"
Lusk Expresses Views
President Works asked Judge Lusk.
a member of tie welfare committee,
to express his views on the proposed
ordinance.
II am opposed to raising the licenses
at ALL" said Judge Iusk. But my
objections are not the same as those
A.I hnIt
increase would do the little man an
injustice. It seems to be the policy
of the city that 200 saloons shall exist
here, and If they are wanted by the
city they should have square deal.
I believe If the license fee was in
creased to $1,000 year many OF the
saloon men would have to go out OF
business.
IT am also opposed to the proposed
tax of $10O a month on social clubs.
The fee should be nominal, $40 or S25
a month. enough to give police Jur1s-
diction. There are other things in the
ordinance to which | object but
expect to make my objections known
in committee"
Councilman Gregory declared the or
dinance as 1t now stands is entirely
too drastic, and that he approved all
Judge Lusk had said with regard to
the license fees.
Councilman Andrews did not believe
the license fee in the new ordinance
too high. He called attention to the
fact that under the old practice or
traficking in licenses saloons paid the
brewerIes $4,000 for their licenses, or
when they did not buy them outright
paid $50 or more a month for the use
of the license He said the saloons
should be taxed enough to pay Tor
the trouble they make.
Councilman williams declared the
license fee of $3.50 month would suit
him and he was ready to vote for that
amount.
Betkouski and O'Brien said nothing,
hut President Works expressed his
views forcibly. :,
"I am opposed to increasing. the Il
cense fees for three reasons, ne saiu.
'In the first place, I do not believe the
city should accept any money at all
that is made from the liquor business.
7 believe the business is Illegal in it.
self. and that no permit the city can
grant will legalize it. I am not dis
posed to vote for any legislation that
will more strongly intrench the sa-
looms in this city I believe if~ft had
not been for the fact that the city was
receiving 100000 year revenue from
the saloons they would have been
voted out of existence at the election
a few years ago when the people de-
cided they should stay. Again, I be-
lieve the amount proposed is exces-
sive. AS long as the city recognizes
the saloons as legal they are entitled
to the same protection as the banks
or any other business. 1t should be
our purpose to make them Just as de-
cent as possible. If the habit of treat
ing and serving free lunches could be
abolished half the drunkenness of the
citv would be wiped out"