Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-04-19
EXTRAsEssIoNAL NOTES.

Immediately after the adjournment of the As
sembly yesterday, the SAN Francisco delegation
met to consider Bibb's bill. The bill provides
that San Francisco shall not levy a tax in excess
of eighty cents on the 500 Of property assessed
for city and county purposes.
Judge Wallace presided. He stated that the
object of the meeting was 10 ascertain what eff
feet the passage of the bill would have on their
neutrality-suspicious. il would uncover the
millions that have not been assessed 10 the rich,
OF would work q hardship on the poorer class.
The meeting was largely attended by members
of the Assembly, VINO evluce a deep interest IN
the case.
L. F. Holtz, Assessor of San Francisco, was
present, ana stated before the committee that he
had assessed all the property he could find Al its
cash value, dollar for dollar
Bibb-At what percentage, Mi HoitZ 90 you
assess personal property in san Francisco?
Holtz-At one hundred cents on the dollar.
Atwell-If that is the case. would like to
buy all Of the personal property IN san Fran
cisco at the rate of assessment. would be 4
CruSls.
Leverson-Mr. Holtz. 7 would Ike 70 ask
about O'Connor & Moffitt; who were assessed for
$4,000, burned out the next day. and claimed
an insurance OF c-5JO.eJJ How Is tnat they were
assessed for only 600 and claimed loss and
insurance for $4,000, when it is q well-known
fact that insurance agents only take d risk on
three-quaTtcr value -
Holt replied that they carried a large stock
OF goods that were exempt from taxation. They
mad packages of silks and yelvctS unbroken
ana until they were broken, according To the
revenue laws of the United States, such goods
were not taxable Imported unbrOkeu pack
ages. the Assessor claimed, could not De as
sessed. Mr.. Holt assured the committee that
ne had assessed all the property he could ind At
its full cash value.
Bib then remarked that Mr Gildea, one of
the State Board Of Equalization. was present
and ne would like TO have him state why, if the
property of the city and county of san Francisco
was assessed at its cash value, the Board of
EQUALIZATION raised the assessment 10 per cent
MesSTS. Wallace, Booth, Hcaley and Flynn en-
RI IN
but Bibb persisted
Gidea-We raised the assessment in some
twenty counties in this State, and in my opinion
San Francisco was not treated unJuSty. she
mas that amount OF property.
HoItz remarked that if the present bill was
adopted it meant "a reduction of salaries and
cutting down municipal appropriations OF all
kinds, including the school fund.
Bihb claimed that the assessment roll Of San
Francisco could be raised. and should be > per
cent
Atweu asked the city that sat by the Golden
Gate was not possessed of more than Sol ,0JO.U0
of personal property He said that was all he
could find credited 10 her but he believed she
mad Z. larger amount
Frederick Gibbs, an cx Supervisor. next ties
tilted what he knew about san Francisco, her tax
1cvies and municipal government He said he
was in favor OF the hill not because he thought
San Francisco not assessed high enough, but be
cause her municipal government was run on too
high d plane of official expense. Leave. ne said,
the roll as il Is collect tax of 70 cents All
minister lle laws rs they should be; employ
competent men In the Offices, and you have all
the fund, you want The Grand Jury, he
claimed, had found the root OF the evil in san
Francisco. While examining the clerks of the
political offices, they mad aSceJalued TINT they
were dilCG with iucompCteuts They are filled
with " butchers and bakers and cludleStIck-
makers lin fact, total lncompeteutS. Hun
dreds OF men are ia poslllou VINO DO NOT know
the first duty 0t their Office. Fiji them properly
with one thir,i the help, ~ the same price, ana
more and better work VIII bc done
a. Nor NV ~ H nod E. HH fa.a HHHfr
action and TO meet at the call of the Chair
The Senate Judiciary Committee went into
session Immediately upon the adjournment of
the Senate Yesterday and TOOK mp for considcra-
lion the dual work on the Barry bin. some de
hate occurred on a motion to have read a com
muuicatiou from John I. DOYLE, author Of the
bill. 4 motion 10 lay tac communication on the
table was lost by vote of ayes 70 noes THE
communication was thethiri received from that
gentleman on The subject, and was mainly rep
ctition of his argument in defense of the bili-f
The committee finally determined 10 have the
letter exclusive OF O. long printed extract from
the New York Nation accompanying ~ read as
q matter OF information and placed on Gle.
The two petitions from Senator ReddyS con-
stituents, and one from Nacavlle. S0lGuo conn
ty. asking Cos the passage OF the Barry BILL were
read and tiled
The bin was then taken up for discussion see.
ton hy section
Baldwin noN ed tnut Section be recommended
for adoption.
The motion was LOST by a vote offs ayes to 10
noes, as follows Ayes-Sreuceroi Napa, Rcddy,
Baldwin, johnson, sullivan and pelNale. Noes
Taylor, VroouHu, Kelley OF solGno. Kellogg,
Mcclure, Perry Whitney, Brooks, Murphy and
Cn)sS
Kellogg moved 20 amend the section by
making e apply 80 freight of The same kind or
class nom tAe same station, and in the same
direction "
johnson argued that The Constitution prohib-
tied any kind OF discrimination
The amendment was adopted Ayes 10
noes q.
Baldwin moved to amend Section so as 70
embrace live stock, household good etc. in
the class of articles 10 which preference may
be given ia Che matter of dSpatching freight
such as perishable articles, express matter, etc
Adopted
Kellogg opposed an amendment to Section
80 TO read that all freight 20 the same kind or
class shan be dispatched, etc in the order re-
ceiyed. Adopted-ayes .: noes. z
kellogg offered al amendment TO line twelve
OF Section a. providing that freight shAil ps