Arizona republican., 1914-10-17
George U. Younq and Ordinance No. 6

George U. Young and Ordinance No.
 It is reported that some of the voters in the country districts inclined to opposition Hon. George [. Young. the progressive candidate for ornor. for the part he took in the adoption by the commission. Ordinance No 6. Some of the voters dc mol know precisely what Ordinance No. was, hut they have heard that it had bad name.
 The Republican, before Mir. Young was induced e. become candidate for governor, when, indeed believed that he would become a candi- date went all the facts in connection with dnance No. 6, 10 the satisfaction all far-1ninded people The Republican engaged in de- icnse of the commission for which it felt no re- sponsiby, but it desired that the of the city administration should be fairly presented. We will again present these facts briefly:
 Ordinance No provided for an occupation tax An occupation is always dstastefu, but most cities find it necessary impose such tax, always hoping that the time may when it shall be discontinued. It was especially necessary that Phoenix when the form of government was in stalled should raise money quickly. Under the old form of government, the city had an occupation tax which still remained in force. It was provided in 8 half dozen different ordinances passed from time time within a period O twenty years Some of tho occupations paid the tax. but did not and special effort had been made to collect it. The new government decided to gather all these occupa- ton ordinances into one and that was done Ia most the clauses were included in the new ordinance without change. Other clauses were added covering new occupations. The merchants tax or dnance was revised and made part the new ordinance. The commission made the mistake of including in the ordinance certain sections regulat- ing the sale of liquor in hotels, restaurants and clubs where it had been dispensed without regard to hours and Sundays and without any the strictons placed the sale of it by saloons This regulatory feature should have constituted sepa- ordinance
 Ali this Ordinance No 6, eighty per cent of which had been nominaly in force for years The language of many the old ordinances was am biguous and that language brought into the ordinance without change It was altogether awkward, but it the expectation of the com mission that early amendments would be suggested and adopted Ordinance No. regarded as only tentative and it intended that any form of oc- equation tax would be only temporary-to meet the pressing needs of the government, with a practically empty treasury, to which the commission had sue ceeded.
 The merchants naturally and promptly objected Co the merchants tax which greatly increased the levy upon them. The commission had expected
 
 visions basis for negotiations. The commission indicated disposition make any able changes. the objections of the merchants, with that understanding, withdrawn
 Then loafers appeared the street and declared that Ordinance No. taxed laborng men; taxed poor washerwomen. The clause relating laundries taken from ordinance that had been enacted many years before, and no washer a with all the other clauses which it was declared i'm posed taxes laboring No working had been taxed, and contemplated in Ordinance No that he should be taxed
 It became evident that the real opostion Ordinance No hidden. It was aimed a nGuor regulatory features of the ordinance The hotekeepers and the keepers engaged in the sale of liquor behind it. They did not dare to show themselves They had to work through others, but finally they secured the invocation of the referendum. At that time there yet great misapprehension regarding the ordinance that jority of the commission, fearing it's defeat, with drew it. But MayoE Young demonstrated his age by voting against withdrawal preferring go before the people drag the quor selling hotels and restaurants into the open.
 Not long after this Ordinance No. 13 so- called regulatory ordinance applicable to hotels and restaurants engaged in the sale Of intoxicating liquors presented It is, perhaps, the worst and most discriminatory ordinance drawn. It firmed the privilege the three largest hotels of Phoenix to do what they had been doing in viola ton of the aw-to sell liquor Sundays after mid- night in private dining-rooms, in prac- ticalIy unlimited quantities minors of either sex