The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-11-28
LOWERING TAXES.
What the City Attorney Has to
Say to the Grand Jury.
An Investigation of the Reduction CT a Cor
poration's Essessment-Siebe and burst
Make Explanations.

Make Explanations.
= An Investigation of the joint action of
Assessor Siebe and City and County Attor-
ney burst in reducing the assessment on
the California Safe Deposit and Trust Com
pany from $40. 900 to $1,000 was resumed be-
fore the Grand Jury yesterday afternoon.
Three hours were consumed in the exam
ination of records and witnesses, at the end
of which time no definite conclusions had
been reached.
Last week Expert Dunn called the a:ten-
ton OF the Grand Jury to reductions on the
assessment rolls and the specific case taken
up for inquiry was that pertaining to the
California Safe Deposit and Trust Com
pany.
Assessor Siebe was first called upon for
an explanation and he made it In this man
ner: In 1890 the company was assessed as
follows: Solvent credits. $4,000; money,
$4,000; fixtures. $1,000; franchise. 200.
After the publication of the official assess
ment list the company applied to the local
Board of Equalization and secured a reduc-
ton to $4,000 For 1891 the company was
assessed as appended: Solvent credits.
$4,000; money, $4,000; fixtures, $500;
franchise $4,000. In its complaint 10 the
Board of Supervisors. while the latter was
sitting as the County Board of Equalization,
the company set forth that the assessment
should have been lowered instead of raised
by reason of increased competition.
A REDUCTION ORDERED.
On this showing the Assessor was au-
thoriZed to reduce the assessment to $40, 900.
the amount shown by the publish ed list of
the previous year. Nothing more was said
about the matter until the rolls were turned
over to the Tax Collector and bill made
out on the $4,000 assessment. Then the
company again applied to the Assessor, and
after learning that the assessment for 1890
had been lowered to 5000, the Assessor re-
ferred the application to the City and County
Attorney, who signed 1t.
While teStifying to these facts before the
Grand Jury Siebe ard ether attaches of the
Assessors office dep0Sed that in the altera-
ton of assessment rolls rs much had been
added as had been stricken off,
ATTORNEY BURST EXPLAINS.
During the session Of the Grand Jury
yesterday a lengthy communication was re-
ceved on the subject from City and County
Attorney burst In substance he says he
has followed the course pursued by his pre-
decessors in Office during the past ten years.
He states that Section 1881 of the Political
Code authorizes him to cause notifications
where mistakes and omissions appear on the
face of the assessment-books. In the work
Of his Office the strict Interpretation Of the
law has not been adhered to because the
practice of predecessors and requirement
have interpreted 1t differently. The neces-
sary certificates for reductions were issued
by authority and approval of the Mayor and
Auditor.
After setting forth the most important re-
auctions in assessments during the present
and past ten years, Mr.. burst says
NOT FORTHCOMING.
In this connection l wish 10 state that In the
case OF most Of the authorizations sent up from
the Assessors Office either aftidayits state
menls or other written matters VI evidence have
accompanied the same have heretofore IN
derSIoOd that the same were filed By the Assess.
or's deputies with the Auditor. The deputies of
the latter assert that the same were never filed
with the Auditor. The deputies of The Asse ssor
assert that they were filed with the Auditor.
They are or appear now not 10 be forthcoming
from either Office.
The California Safe Deposit aud Trust Com.
pany, reduced from $50 600 10 $1,000 same as
last year. Error In making application 10 Board
Of Equalization. Appl ication should have called
for reduction 10 $4,000.
They were assessed last year at $4,000. Mr..
Sebe raised he assessment 10 $4,000. They
went before the County Board of Equalization 10
have The assessment reduced
The Deputy Assessor orally states as supple
mental 10 the above that the assessment In The
OF The franchise only; that the assessment was
reduced by the Board Of Equalization, but that
Dy error tHe ieCucuon was not made In The roll.
APPEARED REASONABLE.
>ConcerniBg the authorization referred to
'DJOvc, can say only that they We're allowed
without my Knowledge; that they appeared
reasonable and Just cases &c my assistant at the
time application was made for them; that they
were only conceded by him after persistent So
icitatlon and circumstances by deputies from
the Assessors Office, and thai they were ia ae-
cordance Win hundreds OF similar authorize
lions solicited by previous Assessors and granted
torneys.
From tha figures afore given It VIII appear
that the result of the authorizations conceded by
crease the valid personal property assessment
roll by S4o7,794 and as consequence the COL
leetabe lax for city ana county purposes by over
$4,000. y
Ii may be that The construction given to the
particular section of the code In practice for a
loug series OF years by successive District and
City and County Attorneys, Assessors and olher
municipal officers may have been unfortunate in
this respect, that 1t may have led at times 10
some abuses. But certain 1t is that IL Is not Pc
cuiiar 10 one or few administrations and also
more certain IL II that II has secured The iemedy-
ing OF thousands of injusuces TO Individual tax
payers. the avoidance OF much municipal ltiga-
tion, and the receipt OF large amounts OF taxes
not otherwise collectable
REASONABLE DISCRETION.
In conclusion / wish to stale that on the I7th
day OF october 1891, after much friction with
The Assessors Office laid The matter OF the CON
tlnuance OF The practice of conserving 10 changes
In the assessment rolls before tie Finance Com
mittee OF the Board OF Supervisors, stating that
IN my opinion the present ed did not st ictly
come Within HE law, although they came within
the rVii IL sought 10 remedy and the Justice It
sought 10 ELECT. / stated that was willing 10
continue giving consents with reasonable discre.
lion, II satisfactory TO the Finance Committee
and TO the Auditor aud Mayor.
After stating that the Finance c, mmittee
OF the Board Of Supervisors authorized the
corrections, the City and County Attorney
concludes as follows:
THE MAYOR AND AUDITOR APPROVED,
Il DaTlnnHly red I'm
and they approved OF its instructions. Slice
then the usual consent has been given 10 cases
not Involving any large alteration In the assess.
ment roll.
Your honorable body will SCI from the above
statement that the puwer heretofore exercised
has not been that OF ieassessment or in other
words, that of "a Board OF Equalization, but that
surety OF correcting errors aud striking off as
sessments that were absolutely Illegal
AT times, Internationally, authorizations have
been signed that could not properly come under
the head oil the correction of clerical errors or
Implications But this has been but the conse-
quence OF the looseness OF practice Ia the past
Furthermore, such errors at times inevitably
occur.
NO CONCLUSION REACHED.
From o'clock yesterday afternoon until
aIter dnrk the Grand Jury struggled with
the communication and compared the
figures with those submitted by the As
SCISSOR -Four big personal property assess
ment-books were also taken in by Expert
Dunn: Assistant City and County Attor-
ney Meyer Jacobs and Clerk John A. Rus
sell OF the Board of Supervisors waited
three hours in the witness-room, but were
not called upon.
Captain Z. Harrison was heard In refer
ence to the assessed valuation of certain
steamers. after which the jury adjourned
until next Tuesday afternoon.
AN AoeRavATrSe SORE THROAT is soon re-
he rndh nv hr IN