Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1889-08-22
THAT SPECIAL TAX.
1t Must be Levied to Pay Poieemen's
Salaries.

1t Must be Levied to Pay Polieemen's
Salaries.
In Department One of the Superior Court
Judge Armstrong yesterday rendered his
decision on the application of L. w. Far
rell for peremptory writ of mandate re-
quiring the Trustees of this city to levy a
special tax for the purpose of raising funds
with which TO pay the salaries of police
officers. The decision is as follows:
In the Superior Court of the county of Sacra-
mento, STATE of California.
l.. w. Farrell, plaintiff VS.. Board of Trustees
of the City of Sacramento, defendant
This is a proceeding for writ of mandate to
compel the defendant, the Board of Trustees of
the City of Sacramento, to levy special tax to
provide sufficient fund to pay the salaries and
expenses of the Police Department. On the
first day of April, 1889, the plaintiff and twenty
four other policemen and Captain of Police,
were elected by the Board of Police Commits
sioners. 1t is objected by the counsel for the
defendant that the Act of March II, 1889, under
which the election was had, was unconstitu-
tional and therefore the election was Illegal
This question was settled in this Court, and the
Act which was amendatory of section 6 of the
Act OF 1872, by which the Police Department
was created was held to be constitutional in
the case of Farrell VS.. the City of Sacramento:
and 1t is now no longer an open question in
this Court. But we may now remark that If
policemen; If, however, il is unconstitutional,
there are no policemen. There is no middle
ground. The Board of Police Commissioners
had the power to elect twenty-five or more,
The law which empos cred them TO elect fifteen
policemen was repealed by the amendment
The only law IN force when the policemen were
elected was the amendment which authorized
the Board of Police Commissioners to elect a
number of policemen not to exceed thirty
This seems too plain for argument.
The annual city taxes were required by law
same time the special tax to replenish the ''Po-
lice Department Fund" was required to be lev
led by Section IA of the Act of 1872. The Board
of Trustees at the time of leyying the annual
taxes levied special tax sufficient TO pay the
salaries of fifteen policemen, that being the
number then in Office, and by the law as II then
stood the Board OF Police Commits toner's had no
power TO elect any more. II the Act had not
been amended to empower the Board of Police
Commissioners TO increase the number, and If
the Board had not elected an increased number
of policemen there would have been sufficient
money in the fund to have paid, during the
fiscal year, the salaries of the entire force but
by reason of the increase of the police force the
| fund has become insufficient IL is claimed by
the learned counsel for the defendant that the
defendant has no power to levy the special tax
after the time for the levy of the annual tax has
passed. The answer to this is: There is the
| same necessity for Police Department Fund
policemen as to pay the salaries of the original
| number and it must be presumed that the Leg
islature intended that the special fund should
| be replenished by special tax. and that they
regarded Section IA of the Act as directory only
| as to the time of levying the special tax.
II is a general and we'll settled principle OF
4 law that where statute directs a tax to be lev
! led at specified tme yet K II is not levied at
that time, 1t is the duty of the taxing officers TO
| levy il at subsequent time, and the levy will
i be as valid as If levied at the time specified in
| the statute. (Gale VS.. Mead, DEMO 100; Sedg-
| wick on Statutes, SD. This rule of law is so
4 familiar to the profession that a citation OF
/ authority in support of 1t is unnecessary. AT
/ the time the defendant levied the special tax
/ the amount row required was unnecessary; but
1 the amount of money necessary TO pay the sal
| aries of the police force being increased by an
increase OF the force, ii became the duty OF the
! defendant the Board of Trustees of the city, to
/ provice by special tax sufficient fund for the
purpose.
But il is objected that as 1t does not appear In
| this case that there is not sufficient money in
the general fund to pay the salaries of the po-
4 licemen, the writ of mandate should be denied
| This objection at first view seemed to present
/ an insurmountsble difficulty in The way of the
| pleiniitf but upon further consideration 1t sp+
pears to be more specious than real. Section Il
| of the Act of 1872 confers the power and i'm
! poses the duty upon the Board of Trustees Of
4 the CRY in these words to estimate the amount
| of money that win be required for police pur
poses during the fscal year. and to cause the
| same t. be Kept as separate. distinct fund. TO
be called the Police department fund, and Il
| be used for no other purpose whatever, excep
the Police Department, and shall levy s specia
1 tax sufficient TO meet said estimated expense
to pay The officers and expenses provided for I.
.hix ACT y