Los Angeles herald., 1890-04-15
Judge Wade Knocks a Hole
in the Councils Method.
The Horizontal Tax Raise
Raced to the Ground.
Such Methods Convenient, but Not so
Legal as They Might Be.
per Foot is Not the Constitutional
Way of Taxing Whole District.

wanted more money than rate OF 81 TO
the 500 of valuation would produce
from 100000 of city property, a
scheme was put up for increasing the
Doodle by some of the able solons. This
was to raise all the valuation of all the
central business property by ten per
cent. On the Assessors figures. The
property-holders naturally objected to
this mode of taxation and would not
pay the extra amount. The case went
into the courts, and much testimony
was taken. Many taxpayers testified
that the session of the Council at which
this was done was more like bedlam
than session of deliberative body
intent on important business. One citi-
zen swore that when he tried to get a
hearing before the Council one of the
statesmen told him he might Just as
well go home, that the Council needed
more money, and this was the easiest
method of getting it. This able legis-
lator seems to have been mistaken, for
yesterday Judge Wade decided the ques-
ton, making the injunction against col
lecting the extra tax perpetual, and thus
depriving the city fathers of the use of
the funds they so much coveted. The
gist of the decision, which knocks out
their high-handed proceedings is as fol-
lows:
The Facts in the Case.
First. Upon ascertaining the aggre-
gate value of the taxable property in
the city, as assessed by the proper Of
ficer, and comparing the result with
the estimated demands upon the mu-
nicipal treasury for the fiscal year, it
was discovered that the levy of tax
upon such property would not produce
sufficient revenue. This was the sug-
gestive fact that set in motion the
powers of the Board of Equalization in
the direction of raising the assessed val
uation.
In order to supply this deficiency of
revenue the Board of Equalization was
appealed to and set about canvassing
the resources of the city. This, how
ever, is not a controlling fact. While it
is true that this was Board of Equaliz-
ation and not Board of Assessors !;
while it is true that it is no part of the
business of this board to provide revenue
in case Of emergency; while it is true
that this board was not provided for the
purpose of defeating the effect of legally
imposed restrictions upon the powers of
the city authorities to levy taxes while
the Board of Equalization was not de-
signed for a convenient handmaiden to
the Common Council, composed of the
same members, when the latter body
should fall into an extravagant mood !;
in other words, while it is true that the
Board of Equalization was obviously de-
signed to determine the comparative
values of different parcels or pieces of
property, so that one piece might not be
required to bear more than its fair and
ratable proportion of the municipal bur-
dens, this board is, nevertheless, en-
powered in the exercise of its functions
not only to decrease, but to increase the
values as fixed by the Assessor. A prudent
and conservative Common Council might
find itself embarrassed for ways and
means of meeting a moderate estimate
for the most essential outlays. In the
emergency they might very pertinently
inquire whether some of the taxable
property within the corporate boundar-
les had not been under-valued As the
result of inquiries thus excited knowl-
edge might come to the members of the
Board of Equalization that there were
certain inequalities which could only be
properly adjusted by increasing the
value of a considerable portion, and
thus in the exercise of its legitimate
functions this board might supply the
deficit.
Second. 1t appears that the notices
sent through the postoffice directed to
the plaintiff were authorized by the
Board of Equalization and not by ordi-
nance of the Common Council that the
time OF this notice was prescribed by
the board as ten days, and the manner
of service indicated was that such no.
tices be forwarded" to the persons
named in the order. In other respects
the matter was left to the Clerks discre-
ton.
Third That the notices were sent
through the postoffice, directed to the
persons intended to be served, by street
and numbers, where that was known,
otherwise generally, as to residents Of
the city of Los Angeles.
Fourth. That the time of hearing
was fixed for several hundred taxpayers
upwards of 300 ON the last day of the
SESSION., and among those required to
show cause on that day were the plain
tiffs therein.
Fifth. That for a portion of the time
during that day, a quorum of the board
were in attendance within the room des-
ignated as the place of meeting. But
Iney were llOC LOT une major part OF the
usual business hours of the day assem-
bled in any portion of the room where it
was apparent to the taxpayers in at
tendance that they could be addressed
as an organized body. No one seemed
to direct the procedure, or have the per-
sons appearing sworn.
Sixth. Some of those in attendance
were notified to appear at O'Clock in
the afternoon, and their cases were
passed upon in the forenoon. Some of
the plaintiffs appeared pursuant to no.
tiee received, to-wit: Some appeared
without specific notice of the matters in
controversy but for the purpose of a
hearing in respect to other matters !;
others whether they received the notice
or not, failed to appear at all. 1t would
have been impossible to give even those
appearing, hearing under oath, owing
to the numbers and the limited time,
and to the disorderly and irregular man.
ner in which the meeting was con-
Quoted. There was no roll-call of MEM
bers in attendance-no method of noting
those temporarily absent and no regular
Cal1 of the names of owners and DrOp-