Imperial Valley press., 1936-11-01
PROPOSITION NO. %.
CHAIN STORE LICENSES

No other proposition on the ballot for
next Tue day is so controversial,
as Proposition No %, which would re-
quire a graduated license fee of from
81 on one store to $500 on every store
after and including the tenth in chain
group For this reason it is desirable
that every voter, whether he makes
close study of any other proposition,
take the time to consider Proposition No.
% before he marks his ballot next Tues
day.
The act would require license fee of
81 on the first store of a chain, 81 on
the second. S4 on the third, $S on the
fourth. SIC on the fifth. S32 on the sixth,
S64 on the seventh, S12S on the eighth.
1886 on the ninth, and $500 on the tenth
and every store above the tenth. EX-
empt are gasoline filling stations, ice
distributing establishments, restaurant
facilities of common carriers, newspaper
offices. theaters and motion picture es-
tablishments and stores where sales are
incidental to rendering personal service.
The amendment has placed California
newspapers in an embarrassing position.
Because of their advertising interests,
they face the charge of being aligned
with one side or the other if they dis
cuss the proposition, when such align
ment does not exist. This newspaper
would not be true to its sense of duty
should If ignore Proposition No. %, yet
in view of the possible charge of bias it
feels that duty is best discharged by
giving both sides of the case so that
the public may decide for itself.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE MEASURE
Chain stores, through their enormous
purchasing power, are menace to the
independent merchants who live in and
support the community, proponents OF
the license measure contend. They say
that the chain stores choke off individ-
ual initiative and remove cash from the
community to the pockets of financiers
in the great money centers, advancing
the argument that this measure will
compel chain stores to bear a just por-
ton of the tax burden, will add needed
funds to the states revenue and Will
give independent merchants a better
chance to compete with chain store prlc-
es. The law, they point out, was adopt
ed by the state assembly by vote Of 6S
to and by the senate by vote of "a to
A. then was placed on the initiative
ballot by action of its opponents while
an injunction suit held off its operation.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
MEASURE
Certain of delay by costly court ac-
ton in the event it is approved by the
voters, this measure presents a wholly
discriminatory proposal which probably
will be held unconstitutional, its oppo-
nents declare. All business is in danger
if it is passed, since it would set pre-
cedent by which one store could be taxed
more heavily than another because it
is painted different color, or because
it is owned by person of British de-
scent rather than of German descent.
Chain stores are part of the communi-
ty, with managers resident in the COM
munity, and employees who live there
and spend their salaries there, it is ar
gued Such a tax load as that proposed
in the measure would throw many per-
sons out of work by forcing less pros
porous chain stores out Of business. On
the other hand, the measure would not
provide sufficient revenue to the state
to make it worth while from that stand
point The proposal is entirely un-Anl-
erican and would tear down much of the
prosperity built up by years of business
enterprise in California, it has been
pointed out.