Los Angeles herald., 1910-04-10
Municipal Affairs
AIMED TO
INJURE Administration
Tax Collector Defends License
Ordinance and Gives Mo-
tive of Attack

An effort to diseredit the present ad-
minstration Is the way c. M. Taggart,
city tax and license collector. charac-
terizes the movement for a referendum
on the new license ordinance He made
/ a statement in writing on the matter
yesterday and filed a copy with the
mayor. In his statement he says:
ut does not seem possible to me
that any fair minded or justice loving
man could for moment sincerely con-
slider invoking the referendum on the
new license ordinance
"I am of the firm belief that it is as
yet only an effort TO discredit the adj
ministration, and l have more faith
in the people of Los Angeles than to
think that any considerable number
will lend themselves to such a pro-
ceedng.
For the benefit of the very few citi
zens of Los Angeles who put any Gre
dence In the morning reactionary or
gan, and also for the enlightenment
Of some who are inclined to sign any
petition presented to them without in
vestigation | would say that the license
ordinance as passed by the council is
as near Just and fair as a license ordi-
nance can be, and that L am willing
to submit it to them after briefly call
ing their attention to the following
points:
Gwen a cursory examination of the
old ordinance will reveal the fact that
it especially favored certain indlVld-
uals in their certain lines as against
people in the same lines of business.
| Take, for instance, the banks. Under
kthe old ordinance any savings bank
doing a business where its discounts
did not exceed 100000 paid license
of $40 month; those whose loans
and discounts exceeded $150OOO and
did not exceed $250,000 SIS month;
those whose loans and discounts ex-
ceeded $3.50 900 and did not exceed
$500, 600, $40 a month; $780, 900 to Sl,O00,-
O00 $50; from 81 900 to $2000,O ,OO0'
$40 a month; from those whose busl-
ness exceeded $2,0000OO, $50 month.
which was the maximum amount paid
by any bank whether it did exactly
81. 0O0, 900 or did $20,000000 worth or
loans ands discounts. This was mani
testify unfair to the small bank, and
even if there was not a bank in the
CITY doing over s., 900, 900 worth of busi-
ness it was still unfair, for the reason
that the $4,000, 900 bank would be pay
ing only at the rate of 81. 90 on each
100000 worth of loans and discounts,
while the bank doing 100000 worth or
loans and discounts would nave 10
nav s10 or four times as much as the
man with the 100000 worth of loans
and discounts. Now, If the bank doing
S1O0. 900 worth of loans and discounts
can afford to pay $40 month for ms
license for doing this business. which
1t now pays a bank doing S2'OO0,oOO OF
loans and discounts could AFFORD TO pay
at the same rate, which would pe $SoV
a month, and the bank doing $2OOOO'Ooo
worth of loans and discounts shouid
certainly pay at the same rate, 'Whlch
yvould amount to $1,000 month.
an the case of the gas companies
under the old ordinance-the license
was S1OO per month. This rate OF $lOo
per month made it impossible TOT d
| person of small means, or a small com .
! many, to engage in the business OF
manufacturing or distributing gas 10
Gov that there was not desire on
! the mart of the people TO form srnali
companies for the manufacture and dis
tribution of gas would be mlsstate,
ment. One instance-there is small
territory down about Manchester ave-
nue. that desires to be served WIN
| gas, but one of the gas companies now
| doing business in this city told them
that they would not give them serVlce
unless they paid them bonus or $lO,-
On Now these people can not pay a
bonus of $4,000 to be served with gas,
| vet i'm the old ordinance they could
not organize a small company ana
| supply their own wants for the rea-
| son that they would have to have PAID
500 per month license-no matter
! how little business they did.
Take the case of the electric Tight
| companies-under the old ordinance a
company doing business whose re-
GENTS did not exceed $500 per month
| had to pay SIS per month license: those
| whose gross receipts exceeded $500, and
did not exceed $1,000, paid $50 per month: :
those whose gross receipts exceeded
$1,000 paid 800 per month-no matter
how much business they did. In other
words. a, company doing $500 worth or
business had to pay per cent of their
gross proceeds, while the company DO
| ing $1,2O000O worth of business only
had to pay $100 per month, which was
ne-tenth of l per cent.
"The three lines of business above
mentioned are the only ones that were
affected to any marked degree under
the new license ordinance-that effect
was to place them all on the pro rata
basis which, of course, is the only
fair way, and the dragging in of the
truckmen, teamsters, laundrymen,
lodging house keepers, restaurant men,
etc, is only a subterfuge for the pur-
pose of impressing prospective signers
to this petition with the idea that a
large number of license payers are
protesting against the new ordinance.
This is evidenced by the fact that the
section of the ordinance relating to
lodging houses and hotels is exactly
the same as in the old ordinance. The
only change in the section relating TO
restaurants is that the minimum clause
of that section was stricken out, which
leaves the section the same as 1t was