The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-07-20
Proceedings Instituted to Gust
the Assessor From Office.
Complaint Filed by ,. P. Dunn at the
Instance of the Citizens Defense
Association.


granted.
incidentally it may be mentioned that the
matter OF complaint was submitted by Mr.
Dunn about one year ago to the Grand jury
then in session, but that body ignored the
charges. Mr.. Dunn wants the Assessor re-
moved from Office because, as he says. that
official has, without warrant of law, re-
duced various assessments after the compile
ton of the roll
MI. Dunn's complaint specifies the follow
ing reductions: California Safe Deposit
Company, from $4,000 10 $500; II. S.
Croker, 5000 to $1,000; c. I'll. Croker.
5000 to $500; Oregon Coal and Naviga-
tion Company, $4,000 TO $4,000; anne
company on steamer AIcata, $4,000 TO
$4,000; Union Paper box Factory, $500
to $1,000; Pacific Steam Whaling Company
on steamer Beluga, $1,000 TO $1,000; Narwhal,
S10,0oo to $500; Al HI, S20,00 TO $4,000;
Jessie, $1,000 to $1,000; aud Jacob Jensen,
from $4,000 r. $1,000, besides hundred
other cases." which the complainant de-
clares it is not necessary TO enumerate.
gesIed by the Citizens Defense Association
as will aprear from the following CORE
spondence:
CITIZENS DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, }
IA SANsoME STREET. Room SO. I
SAN FRANCISCO, May 8, 1892.
Mr. WtlltoTn a. Beatty. 44tt0rHey-0t- LdW, san
FTaHc5Sco-DEAR SIR: The executive commit
tee OF this association respectfully request your
opinion he following matter:
Section 1881 OF the Political Code authorizes
the Assessor, with the consent OF the District
Attorney OF City and County Attorney, to supply
or correct any omissions, errors or defects IN
foIm In the original or duplicate assessment
book.
Il seems that tie City and Comfy Assessor
with Ihe consent OF the City and County Attor.
ney, has made numerous changes OF valuations In
both The real estate and personal property
not appear TO be justified by The section Of the
code above referred 10. In these eases The as
sesSments were arbitrarily made under section
1888. ouIical Code passed Dy the Board OF
Supervisors sitting as County Board OF Equal
iZation and Thea, after the assessment roll had
passed from The eoBtaol of The Assessor and
his duly III relation thereto had ceaSed.
the original ron being in the custody
OF The Auditor aud Inc duplicate In the hands OF
The Tax Collector, the Assessor, with the
sent of the Cny aud County Attorney reduced
the assessments, Notwithstanding that persons
falling 10 make The statement required by
tioB 1929, Political Code, and whose properly -
arbitrarily assessed are 10y section 1888, Political
Code. specifically denied the right TO a reduction
OF such arbitrary a>Se ssmeDtS under any clrcunl-
stances. (Seetiuns 1929, 1888, Pol. Code Oreua
- haze Ut 40 1s p"Ee ooc Cnmnanv '.
Churchill. 20 Csl page 172; City and County OF
San Francisco vs. Flood. West Coast Rep.
page 567.) Now. II the Assessor, In violation OF
the express provisions OF tile law, changed and
reduced the assessments In question Is lie not
guilty of The OtfeBse OF altering or falsifylng
upon conviction OF such offenSe. 10 The penalties
provided by section ia Penal Code ?
Ii. To your judgment, be be guilty OF this or
aDy other ofense by reason Of his acts in rela-
tion 10 the reduction OF these assessments. and
prosecution be advised by you. please suggest
the steps witch, In your Judgment, THIS assocts-
ton should lake 10 inaugurate and cOndnct tbe
prosecution. The PARTICIPATION Of The City aud
County Attorney In the illegal aeis OF the Asses
sOr also requires your opinion as TO his liability
TO prosecution for his connection herewith. In
addition To the section oftDe codes above stated
.sefN ata afar NulN Ions % <
$3.50. 366l, 1862. 1872, 1878. 1874, 1851 and
1852. POLITICAL Code, anu section I13. Penal
Code.
1 also respectfully request your opinion as to
the Ia ability OF these officers their official bonds
for the amount of taxes lost by their Illegal
action. (SeciioOs $500, 1861 and 1862, Political
Code.) An early reply Is respectfully requested.
Yours, ETC., JOHN I. DUNN, Secretary.
To this communication the following re-
ply was made:
SAN Francisco, May IS, 1892.
To the ETecuttUe Committee OF the Citizens
Defense association - GENTLEMEN: The fol-
low Ing at-ment OF facts has been submitted
10 me and / have been requested 10 render an
procedure to be taken by the association.
The statement Is follows:
The Assessor OF this CITY and county with the
written consent OF the Cty and County Attor-
ney las made numerous changes in valuations
In both The real estate and personal property
rolls on properly arbitrarily ASSESSED by him.
Have The Assessor and City and County Attor-
ney viola ed the law in so doing, aud II what
In regard 10 tie changes In the assessment
roll, l can had no authority for making the
same.
When a taxpayer falls under section 1929
Political Code, TO make sworn statement set
ting iorth the property owned and controlled by
him, III Assessor, under section 1888. Political
Code, must proceed to make ais estimate of The
value Of The property OF such person. This as
sessmeDt cannot be reduced even by The Board
Of Supervisors sitting a Board of EqualiZa ion
| The Supreme Court has sustained and inter
| preted THIS section In numerous cases. and in
| each OF these decisions has held that no reduc-
lion can be made. Tie only change IN the as
sessment roll allowed by the code is under
| section $751; and this only authorizes the
| correction OF errors OF fOtm thai are ap-
parent from the roll ITSELF And even IN
these eases OF correction OF clerical errors the
| written consent OF The CTS and County Attorney
| must be obtained. For making these changes In
| the assessment roll the Assessor may be prose-
| cuted u crmnaliy. % by removal from Office
| /. The Penal Code, section ll3, provides that
| every officer having The custody OF any record
or book filed or deposited IN any public
| office or placed IN ms hands for any purpose,
| who Is guilty OF willully destroying. altering de-
facing or classifying, or permits any other person
| so TO DO is punishable by Imprisonment in the
! State prison not less than one nor more than 4
| years. The law Is plain. lie has no possible de-
| tense.
2 The Penal Code, section 772, provides that
| when accusation In writing. verified bv the
oath OF any person, is present 10 a Superior
| Court alleging that any officer has re.
| fused or neglected TO perform the official duties
pertaining 10 bis Oiiiee, the court must elite the
| party cbSrged 10 appear before the court at a
| lime BOT more than ten nor less than five DAYS
| fiom the time the accusation was presented.
| The Assessor comes under The direct wording of
this statute. IL is hts duty 10 see that the as
| sessment first made by him Is inYIolate; lie
| should nterpose In no way with the integrity of
| The coll wbieh Ihe law caused him 10 make Up,
| and which the law expressly fOTbids any one TO
| change. The law says that each person shall he
| assessed arbitrarily II lie refuses TO present q
| sworn statement, and that such assessment
! must stand. If the Assessor changes the roll he
| IS neglectful Of bis duty, and can be removed
| from Office under the statute.
| Tie Supreme Court has decided that section
! 772 Is a re.enaclment of the common law upon
the removal OF public officials. / eau do no bet
| ter than 10 cite the following eases:
In re Marks, As Cal, Y. PIT. II was declared
| that section 772 IS declarsloTy of The common
law. In that action Marks, who was a SAFE
| HaFbor Commissioner, eohspiFed with outside
State at far less than their real rental valuation
| The Supreme Court held that such was neglect
| In the performance oil his official duty
Woods vs. Vsrnum 80 Cal. o. 80. Varnum
| was Tax Collector OF San Diego County, and
| collected money from taxpayers in excess OF the
| amount due from them; and Also in some cases
| collected double assessments. He discovered
bis mistake. and neither returned the money 10
| The owners DOR paid IL to the Treasurer. Held
that lie was clearly within the statute.
With the foregoing view OF the law, / recon-
| memo:
| Flrst-That the association nle a written aeon.
| cation against the Assessor under section 772
| Penal Code, TO remove him from ONCE.
| also advise that he be proceeded against
| crininally under section 1l3, Penal Code for
| wiIlfulIy altering records IN his possession.
| WILLIAM a. BEATTY
concur. BARCLAY HENLEY.
4