Los Angeles daily herald., 1889-08-14
THEY OBJECT.
Taxpayers on the Business
Streets.
CITY COUNCIL ROUNDLY RATED.
The Increased Assessment Under
DiscussiOn-TwO Important
Legal Decisions.

Los Angeles and Spring streets, held last
Wednesday evening, it was decided to
make the attempt to fight the extra as
sessment which the Council, acting 80 a
Board Of Equalization, had placed upon
that section Of the city. These taxpayers
met again last evening in Turnverein
hall to continue their efforts in this di-
rection. Before the meeting was called
to order paper was circulated, which
all of those present signed, in which
they agreed to pay in proportion to the
number OF front feet owned, each one a
certain sum toward the expenses in
cured in fighting the extra assessment.
Ex-Governor Downey, who presided
at the meeting a week ago, took the
chair and called the $50 taxpayers who
were present to order. Mark q. Jones,
who acted as Secretary, read the minutes
OF the previous meeting, which were ap-
proved.
Joseph Mesmer said that before the re-
port of the Legal Committee was read all
Of those present should sign tce agree
ment to pay the expenses OF the attempt
to fight the assessment. The legal opin-
ion of Judge Hutton had coat $50, and
that of Stephen NJ. White the same sum.
Other expenses had made a total of
$122 10. A number came forward and
signed the agreement 1t was found that
total of 5,132 front feet were repre-
Fented at the meeting. 1t was decided
to appoint committee OF five to circu.
late the petition. Walter S. Moore,
Joseph Mesmer, DR.. Burbank, M. G.
Jones and Victor Ponet were appointed.
After some discussion the opinion Of
Judge Hutton was read. In conclusion
the opinion sets forth the view that the
increase of assessment is illegal for tie
following reasons:
First. The ordinance of the city is
somewhat inconsistent with the provis-
| ions of the present charter, in that the
charter provides that the Council shall
constitute the board, and the ordinance
provides that the Mayor and Council
shall meet as the board, 80 that the city
should have passed another ordinance
amendatory of the old ordinance; but
that neither the failure to do SO nor the
absence of the Mayor vitiates entirely
the proceedings of the board.
Second. That the Mayor and Council
did not possess under the charter the
power to delegate to the City Board the
right to prescribe by rule what notice
shall be given TO property owners, but
it was the duty of the Mayor and Coun-
J Gil itself to do so.
i Third. We think it within the power
of the board to determine that all the
property on one or more certain streets
is assessed too low, and can, after proper
proceedings, make uniform raise. We
do not mean that the power was judi
ciously exercised in this instance.
Fourth. That it would be necessary for
each one of the property owners to insti-
tute and maintain O separate proceed
ing, and that each one illegally raised
can tender the amount really due and
| enjoin sale.
Fifth. Unless it can be established that
| there was not in attendance sufficient
number of the board to constitute quo.
rum, we cannot advise the institution of
any suit by or on behalf of any property
holder who appeared before the board /;
but as to all others, we think that the
action of the board was illegal, and that
the payment of the increased tax may
oe avoided as above suggested.
| The opinion of Mr.. White is that the
increased assessment is illegal, at least
as to those who did not appear before the
Board of Equalization. After stating the
provision of the charter bearing on the
question, he says that it is very difficult
to ascertain from the records whether the
Board of Equalization ever held any
meetings, and that at times; 80 he is in
formed, when protests we're being consid-
cred, there was less than quorum pres
ent. The first question to be considered
is whether the board had the power to
make the raise to which objection is
made. A single district was selected,
and large sum was added to the value
placed by the Assessor upon the property
in that district. Now, if the board has
such a power, it does not matter as far as
the Law is concerned whether it acts
justly or not.
Mr.. White reviewed the matter of the
conflict of the charter with the ordinance,
and concluded as follows: First, that
those who did not appear before the
board, and whose property had been thus
raised, can procure an annulment of the
order of the board increasing their asess
ment.
Second. That as to those who have
voluntarily appeared before the board
there il considerable doubt, but the
chances of litigation are in their favor,
though he would not give an unqualified
opinion as to their success. The minutes
show that the board ordered ten day g
notice to be given various property-own-
ers, but the language used is so indefinite
that he does not think the courts will
hold any rule was adopted on the sub
ject, and there should have been an
ordinance providing for notice; therefore
the raise is illegal, at least as to those
who did not appear.
Mr.. Joe Mesmer explained Mr.. Whites
opinion by narrating the latter'e conver-
sation with City Clerk Teed. The Clerk
at first said that he would take an affida-
Wit to the effect that there was always a
quorum present, AID that the Mayor also
was at the meetings of the board. When
Mr.. Teed was warned that he might per-
jure himself in making this statement, he
said that he would think the matter over
and consult with the City Attorney.
Mr.. Lichtenberger narrated his expert
ence when he went before the board.
He did not find quorum present, and
they behaved like a lot of schoolboys.
The Mayor was not there. Mr.. Roberts
said that he was there, in and out, dur
ing whole day. Hazard was never
there, and not more than five Council
men were ever there. Mr.. Moore told of
his visit when there was no quorum pres
ent, but there were several members of
the Fire Commission, who were lobbying
through their scheme for 100000