Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-03-07
81, AGA, $50 81 81, lOI, 400 II

| errors made were on both sides OF the ac-
count. Some items were slightly underes-
timated, while others were greatly exagger.
ated, the preponderance being on the latter
| side. In the item of water rents. though
| considerably under the estimate, the actual
receipts showed healthy increase over last
| years revenues from that department.
| When this item was fixed at 5000, 900 last
| year it occasioned surprise. there being no
apparent reason for such heavy increase
in revenue from that source. The explana-
tion for the Mayors Office revenues not
coming up to the mark is the decreased
number of arrests and raids on disorderly
houses In 1890 the Mayors Office turned
in larger revenue than last year.
Proceedings to Recover tho Difference.
The item "street railways shows the
small revenue the city received last wear
from those corporations. Only 81 900 had
been expected, but the receipts fell short
$500. The Controller says, however, that
proceedings are under way to secure at
least portion of the $500.
No one seems to understand why the
City Engineers Office was put down last
year for $4,000. Under the new street
laws the operation of that department is en-
tirely at the city's expense, and instead of
property holders paying for the surveys
made for street improvements which were
formerly revenue, that work is now paid
for out of the city treasury, and the Office
yields no returns The bulk of the receipts
from the City Attorneys Office comes from
the payment of Penn avenue compromise
bonds This Office is expected to yield
larger returns this year, owing to the re-
sumption of street improvements and the
collections under the curative act.
Amount of Miscellaneous Revenue.
The greatest error was made in the item
specified as miscellaneous What revenues
the committee had in view as part of this
item no one seems able to tell now. The
sources from which the revenues forming
the S62, 939 81 were derived were as follows:
Bureau of Police, sl7,oa o.; Bureau of Fire,
s6l9 %; Bureau of Health, 81, ,7S3 q; water
supply, 1922; highways and sewers, $30s 20;
engineering and surveys, $45; miscellaneous
Tssspss, iSais prnsng 'na prsssss ssssS
ordinances. $40: vendors licenses,
s., ISL 20: fines from aldermen, ssl 20:
city weigh scales, $3.50 IS; rents. r., sl:sos 30;
new buildings s., 595 80; tax on peddlers,
$74 60; total, ,933 81
As far as could be learned, this is about
the usual revenue from the sources com
prsing what is known as "Miscellaneous.
The Police Bureau furnished more than was
ever credited to it before, owing to the en-
forcement of the dog tax last year, and on
account of the show and peddler's license
business being turned over to that bureau
last year by the Mayor.
Another point is to be raised on the class
ifcation rule of the Board of Assessors and
they will no doubt be taken into court on it
A prominent East End attorney who de-
clines to allow the use of his name, but who
has been prominent in municipal affairs for
many years, declares that unless the
assessors grant his demand in the assess
ment of his property he will fight them in
the courts.
A Contest Seems Certain.
AS the assessors have stated their deter
mnation to stick to their new classification
rule, and as they cannot grant these demands
without breaking that rule, there is little
doubt but the question will be raised.
To use the gentleman's language: 81
don't see how the court can sustain
such an absurd scheme as this Philadelphia
plan the assessors have adopted. Under 1t
they become partitioners of every mans
property they see fit TO divide. Where
they get their law for this course am at
loss to know. They asked the CITY at
torney for an opinion on the matter and he
gave them the law governing them. His
opinion was backed up by other attorneys
with whom they consulted. Then they
proceed to disregard all the good advice
they got, and take up this nonsensical
Philadelphia idea. Their duties in the
matter of classification are clear enough if
they wish to be governed by common
sense Interpretation of the law.
SIN my own case I propose to question
the right of the assessors to make any
changes in the classification after they have
filed their report to Councils. The law re-
quires that they shall report to Councils in
January of each year the taxable valuation
OF the city, and on the figures embraced in
that report the tax levy shall be made, and
the years appropriations made. Our As
SCISSORS presented their report last Monday.
A Technical Point Raised.
"They have no right to present another |
or to amend that already submitted, and |
under the law the classification of property
included in that report cannot be changed |
for this years assessment. The assessors
had no right to designate the valuations of |
several wards as estimated, and Councils |
should have returned the report to them for |
But since Councils failed in |
their duty they cannot legally wait for and |
take other figures as the basis for the tax |
levy. 1t must be made on $oe6, ,00O, 900 |
valuation, and under the law the: exonera-