Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1884-04-22
ASSEMBLY.

| 4 II.
day. Carried.
ASSEMBLY.
The Assembly met at P. NJ pursuant to
adjournment Speaker La Rue in the chair. The
roll was called, and quorum found TO be pres
ent.
Assemblymen Coleman. Martin, Murdoch
Beard, Stewart, Nicol and Bowers were granted
leave of absence.
The special order for P. NJ, an Act relating
TO the rate of taxation in the various counties,
and cities and counties of this State, introduced
by Bibb of San Francisco, was taken up.
Bib spoke ut length on the merits of his bill,
and urged its passage. He was satisfied that
| San Francisco assessed entirely too low.
| Market street alone he claimed was worth as
much as the amount for which the entire city
was assessed. Blocks of real estate on some of
the streets are valued at $1,000 front foot but
they are not so assessed He supported his ar
| guments by editorials taken from the Bulletin
| and star, of San Francisco.
Flynn said he could not agree with Mr.. Bib
| in one single argument or particular. He
| claimed that all the property that could be
found was assessed, so the Assessor of san Fran
cisco says.
Atwell asked the speaker if he was not hold
ing an official position al the present time, re-
ceiving therefor the munificent salary of $50
| per month, and if this bill became a law would
| it not affect his salary?
| Flynn said he was not drawing $50 from SAN
| Francisco nor any other sum.
| Atwell asked if he had not come to this LegiS
lature on Il temporary leave of absence, and
| would he not return TO that office Immediately
| after the adjournment of the Legislature?
| Flynn said he resigned before he came here.
Barry rose to point of order, claiming that
the gentlemen were not speaking TO the ques
| ton.
The Speaker-The point of order is well taken.
| Flynn said the bill was not right-it was I'M
| just, outrageous 1t is imposing on San Fran
| cisco Il tax she did not desire If the officials
| are not honest i'll San Francisco we viii take
| care of them there. Judging from the senti-
ment expressed by the press in SAN Francisco,
| we Will ere long have tax levieS at 50 cents or
| less Both of the great parties in San Francisco
advocate low taxes He did not believe the
country delegations desired to cnch san Fran
| cisco but believed they would allow San Fran
| cisco to take care of herself
Cutter said san Francisco had succeeded in
! 1874 in securing the passage of special Act
| with reference to the assessment and collection
! of personal property taxes, which was still the
| law, and under which i'll seven Years that city
| was delinquent Il .2O0,0O0 to the State. This
| showed that If the assessment and collection of
| taxes i'll SAN Francisco was properly conducted
revenue enough could be raised mt an S0-cent
rate, even on the present valuation. The bill, if
passed, would result either in reducing the eN-
| penses OF the city government of san Francisco
| TO an economical basis, or, If the authorities
| choose to keep up the present prOdlgal eXpendi-
! tire. the assessment roll would have
| TO be increased, and the State would derive
| benefit from that increase In his opinion,
| knowing Sdn Francisco as he did, there would
| be small reduction of expenses, but the valua-
| ton of property would be raised so 900
| which would enable reduction of five cents i'm
| the State rate, thereby saving the interior coun-
| ties hundreds OF thousands and even then San
! Francisco would not be half taxed Nor would
| such increase work any hardship on the small
taxpayers OF san Francisco for being now
seSsed at nearly actual value, these little prop
critics could not be raised in proportion TO those
| OF the wealthy, who now were not One-tenth
| taxed If one now had 5000 of aSseSSable
property in san Francisco, and under
| this bill it became necessary to increase
| the valuation to 5000 even then he
would be called on to pay SO less
! annual State and county taxes than now-the
present State and county rate 81 70) on 5000 be-
| ing 50, and the State and county rate under the
| bill 81 % on 5000 being but SO. Members
| from the interior should remember that if they
voted against this bill they voted against saving
their respective counties a reduction of five
cents on the State tax Nearly all the san Fran
cisco delegation, he said, had favored this bill
until they found out it would put several hun
dred thousands Il year into the State Treasury.
TO the benefit of the interior counties. He
trusted the bill would pass in conclusion, Mr..
! Cutter read the following:
=" Mr.. BIBB: | cannot be here as | am called
away by the Board Of Equalization, to travel:
| but you can say for me that consider your bin
one of the most important before the Legis-
lature rs its passage. viii go far towards obtain
ing fair valuation of property i'll the State and
AN equal distribution of taxation among the
counties. It will be valuable auxiliary to the
| Board In haste. f. W. MASLIN."
Barry was opposed to san Francisco being
" made to pay more than just quota of taxes"
He knew the Assessor did not find the personal
property He also knew that banks and corpora
tons largely escaped taxation. but he asked how
will this bill remedy the matter?
Simon moved that the bill be passed ON the
file, to allow time to examine into the merits of
the bill
Cutter said it was not enlightenment they
wanted. The delay was simply 50 as TO enable
them to make votes. He opposed the motion.
Sweetland was opposed to the postpOnement.
He had had five years experience as an Assessor,
and III his opinion 1t was good bill and should
pass
keelerwas opposed to the post ponement. Hon
est labor is willing that all its earnings shall be
assessed for the benefit of the Government. Do
the san Francisco members, he asked, take the
country members to be - innOcentS abroad - He
is assessed for its full cash value. Some two
years ago Il friend of his moved to San Francis
co, purchased for himselt.an elegant residence,
paying therefore $1,000. Shortly afterwards the
Assessor came around, and he gave in his assess
ment ut $4,000. \ neighbOr hearing of it, in
formed him that such honesty was something
unknown in san Francisco, and volunteered to
attend to the business for him. He did So When
his friend called pay his taxes he was assessed
for 81 200. instead of $4,000.
Atwell said it is not surprising that men who
live and fatten N the public crib should oppose
the bill From reliable information we cannot
but believe that this great city is not assessed
for forty cents on the 500 He scored the Board
of Supervisors of san Francisco and compared
them to the Democratic Board of Supervisors
that ruled New York city in the days of Boss
Tweed. They are as willing to cover up the
wealth of san Francisco, and ask What are
you going to do about it, with as much non
chalance as did the famous " Boss of Tam
many
Flvnn objected to the speaker comparing his
constituents to the Tweed ring.
Atwell said he was sorry to say all men do not
possess the integrity they should. 1t is an old
saying-and he was sorry TO say in many cases
too true-that every man has his price. The
press of SAN Francisco and the wealthy men of
that commonwealth echo what Supervisor
Gibbs said before the committee the other day
that the city suffered more from lack Of economy
in the administration of her public affairs
than in anything else. The As
SCISSOR of san Francisco said before the
committee that that city is assessed for its full
cash Value, but we all know, and he must
know that the property in san Francisco to-day
could not be purchased for ten times its assessed
value san Francisco does not wish to con
tribute her just quota of state taxes He would
like to ask who il is that fills the jailS and peni
tentiarcS. The records show that n majority of
the inmates are from san Francisco, while the
insane asylumS had n decided majority from
san Francisco on roll call.
Terry said this bill was an unwarranted inter
ference with the local government of San Fran
cisco
iature called as II was to force railroads to pay
their taxes. would ut the same time refuse to
compel the wealthy men and firms of san Fran
cisco to pay their taxes.
The roll was then called and the bin defeated
by the following vote
Ayes-Atwell. Barnes, Bayley. Bib, Brock
enridgc, Briceland, Brown, Caminetti Camp
bell, Carter, CoombS, Crumpton, Doty, Farley,
Field, Fleming Fortna, Granger, Harvey,
Head, HOLSTER, Irwin Keller. Leyerson Me
Claskey, Reeves, Ryan, Sweetland, Warath,
Weaver, Wheeler, Nell-32.
Noes-Barry, Booth, Callahan, Cary, Culver,
Cutter Flynn, Gaussail Hail. Hamilton Heath,
Hunter, kerrick, Lcwison. Mathews, Melon
aid, McHalc. Mckinley. Murphy, Nicol, OCon-
nor, Parker, Peterson, Plover, Rawle, Riehl
Simon, stephens, StOrke. Terry, Townsend, Wal
lace, Wharton, Wheat, Mr.. Speaker-S5.
AbSentees-Beard. Bowers. Clark, Clement
Coleman, Faw, Healey, Hershy. Johnston, Mar
tin, Moflitt, Stewart, MurdOck-l3.
Cutter gave notice that he would move a re-
consideration
The next matter taken up was the special
order Assembly Bill No. ~, prescribing the
method of valuation and assessment of rail
roads etc.
The bill was read third time and passed by Il
vote of 90 ayes and noes, Sweetland and Wal
rath voting negatively
Campbelrs bill, No. IS, relating to revenue
and taxation, which amends Sections 37Il, 1878,
1856 and 37S7 of the Political Code, was read
third time and passed unanimously
At $50 ?. VI the House adjourned.
EXTRASESSIONAL NOTES.
Senate Bill No. - introduced by Buck of So
| lano) relating To the definition of terms in the
Political Code applying to property, for assess
| ment purposes, was acted upon yesterday by the