Hide Article Text (OCR)
Alarmed..The liquor dealers of Alameda county are much disturbed over the probability that the county, liquor license tax now imposed will be doubled within a shortJime., All that is required to accomplish ihis -result is to have the Board Of Supervisor!!' amend the present ordinance. This move is being agilated by at least one member of the board tfcho believes that a_majority oft he rtientbirs will vote in fayorof the increase as soon as it is, btought before them tor consideration. —Tba^proposUion^that^is'-.beirtg^disz: cussed provides , that the ...present license of $30 a quarter upon all retail liquor establishments doing, business cutsi^le of the incorpora'tcd towns shall be. raised to at leaSt $50 a-quarter. The.matter \yas informally presented tol’elouze who announced that he ,was in favor of such a .measure in -order—to establish greater- uniformity in -the matter of licenses. He. cited as ata-Ljnstanee the (act that Berkeley collects sa fowtr license of $50' a_ quarter, while in I.orin and adjacent surbutbs hot mcorpornted the tax collected by thecounty is only $30 a-quarter...‘ He is pieparing to have definite action takenthe present, board expires on Januaryi st nex(. It.has been a disputed point for,a long time whetfier the TStqrerviSofSpould collect a- county license from saloons doing 1 business . within incorporated towns and cities. For a long period the contention was made that the jurisdiction of the. board did not extend that far, and that the liquoi men were in no danger of being co’udpened’lo payTdth hluriicipal 'and' county licenses. , .The agitation' of a proposed increase brought to light recently a decision of the Supreme Court upon the subject.-it was rendered in a Santa Clara county case and'firirly staggeredthe liquor men. for it unequivocally gave the board full power to collect a uniform tax throughout the coutity irrespective Of the political divisions of towns .and cities. The court said this could be done’forpurposes of revenue. —-There -are-alin the county who pay the $30 rate. At present none in Alameda^ Berkeley ; San .Leandro, Haywards, Pleasanton, -Livennpre-Qr-Qaklandlare—obliged t6. -TXty-'the-cnuii Ly-tas-—-Phey—pays.tiawn. ■orcii7;licensesranging™-frpm--;$5oo.to2001a ybar,. Whether the, proposed increase wifi be made to include these .towns is a point question. “ I am inclined to believe thatjhe 'dealers in cities like Oakland which-cMforec-sa lieeiise-OT-$.toobr-Alamed.V.-which collect's $5009 .year- lroni1 the saloon men are carrying a sufficiently -large-burdeni-^-said-Su pemsoteBelouze-. yesterday’-buHhere-is no—quest ion asto the power of the board -in the premises-.1 I am satisfied that there.-shouldBe^n^ncrekse-inLitheljcQimliL:tax. It. is far too low in comparison with the tax. imposed infmany oj the -ineorpotated-ldcftlities, ”
Newspaper Details
Berkeley Gazette
Berkeley, California, US
Tue, Nov 10, 1896
Page 3
Full Page
Clipped by
Anonymous
USA 24 Dec 2024
Other Publications Near Berkeley, California
Berkeley Reporter
Berkeley Sun and Letter
Berkeley World Gazette
Berkeley Gazette
Berkeley Daily Gazette
