The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1890-03-12
TO FIGHT THE CITY.
GROUND RENTERS START a FUND
TO RESIST TAXATION.

a ~---~1O
over $4,000 to Contest the Taxa
ton of Ground Rent Property-Les
Nights Lively Meeting at Masoni
Hell-Some of the Ground Renter
Use Rather Tart Language in Dis
cussing the Councils Action-Th'
Debate over Two Reports.
The ground renters to the number o
about $50 held a meeting at Masonic hal
last night at, which majority and minorit,
reports of the special committee were pre-
sented, and the majority report, which
means war with the city against taxing thu
ground rent lots. was adopted, and thirty
two Of the ground renters, after the meet
ing adjourned, signed an agreement to pay
their pro rata Of the expense for resisting
taxation in the court of last resort.
The meeting was called to order by /. G.
Haas, with A R. Fawcett acting as secre-
tary. The reading of the minutes of the
previous meeting was dispensed with, and
the secretary read the majority and minor
ity reports
THE MAJORITY REPORT.
The minority report was signed by David
Wells, Robert Mcintyre. A. R. Fawcett,
John Lynch, and Waring Russell, and is as
follows:
The committee submits the following report
They regard the claim made by the present
board composing the city council OF the right
and power 10 tax city lots as unjust and in vio-
latlon OF the understanding that has always
existed IN regard to the immunity OF such lots
from city taxation and the contract made by
the city when it disposed of these lots.
That the rights of the holders of said city lots
TO hold the same under perpetual lease. free
from city taxes, which has existed from the
time that the lots were disposed of by the city
until the present time, in some cases extend
ing over period of nearly 100 years, is too
valuable and important TO be surrendered on
the mere demand Of the present mayor and
aldermen of the city of Savannah, and should
not be given up or abandoned, but any denial
of the right and attempt to levy and collect
city tax should be resisted
That the offer Of the present board of mayor
and aldermen to give a Zee simple title to the
holders of these lots on payment Of 20 per cent.
of the sum which would be necessary to obtain
an absolute title in fee simple is not an ade-
quate return or compensation for the surrender
of the rights and immunities which the holders
of city lots now enjoy, in every case, at least,
where the taxes would equal or exceed the
ground rent.
That such Of the holders of city lots as are
determined TO maintain their rights, and to re-
slst any attempt to violate or infringe the same
should cooperate with each other and con
tribute to pay the costs and expenses of litiga-
ton should the present city authorities attempt
TO levy and collect taxes on lots held under the
city at ground rent, and the holders be forced
thereby to seek the protection of the law
THE MINORITY REPORT.
The minority report was signed by the
chairman Of the committee, Charles NJ.
Gilbert, and John M. Williams, and is as
follows:
The offer of the city to make the lots fee
simple upon payment of valuation money, with
discount Of 30 per cent by MAY l. 20 per cent
by Aug l, and 10 Der cent by Oct. /, 1890 we
recommend be rejected. The matter not hav-
ing been decided by the courts in favor of the
city, the offer is not satisfactory neither in
time Of payment nor amount.
without admitting in any way that the city
has the right or the power to levy and collect a
tax upon city or ground rent lots, we recon-
mend that the lot holders offer the city so Der
cent. OF the valuation money, payable in QUAR-
terry payments, without interest, in three, six
nine, and twelve months from say March l.
and that ground rent be paid up to that date
We recommend that a committee be ap-
pointed to secure the signatures of ground rent
lot holders, representing at least one-half of
total valuation money Of all ground rent lots
agreeing to make their lots fee simple upon
ABOVE conditions if accepted by the city and If
this offer should be declined by the CITY we
recommend that any attempt by the CITY to
levy tax on ground rent lots be resisted and
that lot holders combine together for that pur-
pose, employ counsel and contest the matter in
the courts.
In making the above recommendations wa
feel that basis of settlement of so per cent. is
far both 10 the city and to the lot holders
While we deny the legal and moral right of the
city 20 tax these lots, we would recommend the
avoiding of litigation
To the city the advantages are that under
this arrangement it would get as much each
year for taxes upon present valuation as it has
been getting for ground rents; BESIDES it will
get the amount of what may be paid in to make
the lots fee simple. which can be applied to anv
extraordinary expense of the city, such as sew
erage, drainage, water. etc, the apparent need
OF which at this time will require larger amount
OF money than the usual source of revenue viii
provide, unless an increased rate of taxation is
added therefor.
The advantages to the lot holder in having
ms lot Zee simple are that at present the city
can take possession of his lot upon his failure
to pay ground rent, which will be avoided Tie
present valuation of these lots by the CITY is
very much higher than they would have been
vaIued az tew years ago, so that il values
should fall to former prices the average lot
holder would be under not much more expense
than now, and il lots should increase in value
ana taxes increase on that account II would
than regret. Besides it will save fine
expenses and vexations that must attend ltiga.
ton, in resisting the effort of the city to levy
and collect tax in addition to the ground rent
Nhhe the money interest is naturally the chief
item we are considering, we would add that as
good citizens it behooves us to eudeavor 10
avoid strife with the officers who represent us
IN the management of our city. With these
views we recommend what we consider an
equitable settlement, and if not accepted, that
then the matter be left to the decision of the
courts.
ALIvELY DEBATE.
Joseph Ehlen moved that the majority
report be adopted.
Charles M. Gilbert defended the minority
report. He read from the decisions of the
superior and supreme courts to show that
there are two sides to the question. He re-
viewed the history of the ground rent lots
from 1870 down to the present time. and
while he argued that the lots are not liable
TO city taxation, as they were sold as ground
rent lots, designated by the superior
court as "lease' lots, and some of
them sold by the city marshal, with the ex-
PLANTATION that they were exempt from CITY
taxation, yet as there are two sides to every
question, and as neither side is sure and
positive, and as it is good thing to get the
city on a boom, it is best for the CITY and
the lot owners to come to a settlement and
get the issue out of the way by settling up
on the so per cent. discount plan.
S. Elsinger opposed the minority report,
If such a settlement were possible il is
doubtful, he said, if the contract will not be
attacked fifty years hence, as the present
council is now seeking to void the contract
with the ground wrenters. There are, he
said, between 600 ana 500 ground renters, and
there Is no certainty that all would agree
TO settle on the so per cent. basis, or that all
viii be able to do SO if they are--inclined to
1t. He thought it best that the courts