The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1891-07-01
TAX COLLECTIONS.
The New Law Puts the Collector
in Quandary.
Counselor burst Advises Him to Follow the
Old Method-Intimates That the Act
Is Unconstitutional.

One OF the new revenue laws passed by the
late Legislature has thrown the Tax Collectors
ONCE In this city into ferment, and there is a
strong possibility that 1t will result in testing the
constltutlonallty OF the law by landing il into
court.
The law was deliberately discussed by the press
ana otherwise at the lime of Its consideration In
the Legislature, aud was favorably styled "a law
TO provide Tor the payment OF taxes on the IN
stallment plan"
The argument In its behalf was that 1t would
enable the farmer aud producer TO pay his taxes
In two installments, and thus relieve him of the
burden OF paying ali at once, just the piuching
winter season was coming when he need ed
money most.
ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON.
Against The measure II was argued that 1t
would completely demOraiZe the fiscal system OF
San Francisco, because Tie records are vol
luminous that it would be practically impossible
to handle them In accordance with It's proyis-
Ions.
To specially fit the case accordingly, the plan
OF nstallments WAS still preserved, but the dates
of payment for San Francisco taxes were so
changed that II would be possible to complete The
records within each fiscal year.
Now comes the first hitch, and the situation is
SO badly mixed that Tax Collector o. Brien finds
himself utterly unable 10 eraspi Ii.
Even before the Legislature convened, and
while IL was In session. the Assessor and lax
Collector were both compiling records for the
guide to work blythe old law.
oBRIEN's DILEMMA.
The new measure had not become law. and
even when passed did not go into Immediate
effect. Indeed, 1t becomes an active law to-day.
In san Francisco The fiscal year begins July
LIST. Tie assessment roll of each year, there
fore is compiled the previous year. that is, the
roll for lS91-92 was complied IN March, April
aud May Of 1891. This work OF course had 10
be done under the old law, the new law not
beng IN IOrce and could not be anticipated.
The new law provides that IN making up the
personal property assessment the personal prop
erty mot secured by real estate" must be seq
reaated. The old law contains no such pro-
vision, hence no such segregation was made.
Today the new law goes iulo effect and pro-
vIdes that the taxes on all personal property
"secured by real estate" Will be due and paya-
bic on the first Monday in October. and Will be
delinquent ON the last Monday in November.
PERTINENT QUESTION.
MIR. O'BIlen asks significantly how can he
obey that law when there isn't figure on the
assessment roll, from END TO enu, to show which
oil the personal property Is secured and which is
not?
Under the old law all personal property tax is
due as soon as the roll Is turned over TO the Tx
Collector. about July 1st, and becomes deinQu.
ent the first Monday 10 August.
In point OF delinquency, therefore, there is a
difference between The TWO laws of more than
three months In favor OF The new law. very
great consideration when there are many thou
sands OF dollars al stake. All heavy Taxpayers
on personal property will take a lively interest
IN knowing whether they are delinquent on the
first Monday In August or the last Monday in
November.
sun another feature Of the delinquent question
will be the penalty. The old law provides 8 per
cent, the new law says 10 per cent, a serious
difference where many thousand dollars are in
volyed.
LEGAL OPINION.
Tax Collector O'Brien called on Counselor
burst for advice. The counselor naturally thinks
that between the County Clerk, the Tax Collector,
the Auditor and the Supervisors lie Is getting a
hot vollry OF legal cannonading But he has
yanked of his coat, rolled up his sleeves and
waded IN. Yesterday be informed Mr.. O'Brien
In semi-otiica manner that the old law is The
proper guide, In his opinion, for the collection of
personal property taxes. He further intimates
that he viii express his official opinion at length
in a day or two more. that the whole revenue law
(the new law Is unconstitutional One reasonis
that 1t discrimnateS iD favor of the railroads.
another that the discrimination between San
Francisco and other cities Is too apparent.
ONE OF THE PROBABILITIES.
II the Tax Collector undertakes TO collect The
personalprOperty taxes under the old law, and
declares them delinquent after the first Monday
III August, when the law now In force plainly
says they are not delinquent till the last Monday
first installmenD In November, large taxpayers
who may happen 10 get 10 the iufch Will I'M
doubleday contest the point in court, and the re-
suit is likely to be a "hung case" of a year or
two before the Supreme Court Will have decided
the poiut, and meanwhile all the tax payments
IN San Francisco Will be obscured IN uneer-