The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-03-25
AFTER TAX COMMISSIONS.
The State Demands What the u
Charges for Collecting Taxes.

s.a,a Demand, what the CITY
Charges for COLLECTING Taxes.
very important meeting was held In
Auditor Smiley's Office yesterday afternoon,
which NAV be regarded as the preliminary
stens by State and municipal authorities
To determine the right OF counties TO
charge the State for collecting the States
norton of the taxes. That custom las
peyailed in some counties Tor many
wears. and in San Francisco since 1898. put
"a soon as w. II. Hart put on the authority
of Attorney General he began to pry INTO
the legality of it. and came to the conclusion
that none of the counties had that right.
There were present Mayor SandersoD.
Auditor Smiley. Supervisor Ebert Treas.
urer Widber, City and County Attorney
burst, his first assistant, Meyer JACOBS
Clerk John A. Russell OF the Board Oh ou-
neTvisors Attorney General Hart, Con-
troller CoIgan and f. III. Eby.
The city's percentage Tor colecting tne
State taxes this present fiscal year is S42, 600.
which. as on all former occasions for thirty
eight years, was retained by tue treasurer
and included in the annual municipal esti-
mate.
The Attorney General and Controller
made the proposition mat an agreed case DC
prepared by the State and municipai autnof-
tiles and submitted at once 70 the supreme
Court They would then get 1t advanced on
the calendar aud receive an early oecision
The officials representing the CITY woulo
not consent to any.such proposition. ibey
said they would agree, however, not 10 lf-
terfere with any proposed measures after IN q
present wear tending to straighten out Z
tapgie either In the Legislature or The
courts. provided the sum 10 controversy ITS
this wear is not disturbed. To tie up S42.-
coo out of this years appropriation would
seriously cripple the city's finances, aud
might damage the city equal 10 aoupie OF
treble that amount.
The Attorney General and controller nave
the matter under advlsemept anu VIII give
their reply In a day or TWO.
Whether favorable or not Ii can be SAFELY
asserted that the city Will not surrender one
dollar OF the sum In dispute this year WITH
out a sharp legal battle. and ii 1T comes to
that IL will be at least two years before the
courts can dispose OF 1t.
seTbe eouitles of the case seem perfectly
pIaip," said Supervisor Ebert last night.
1.-THE State Board of Equalization ordered
State purposes. Now Ii cost this city $4,000
to make that increase. Isn't 1t reasonable
that We should be paid for it?
"Wben Controller Colgan was asked why
he let this matter pass last year without
calling attention to 1t and yet Is SO Iedhot
for the money this year, he replied that IT
was because he was young in office and did
hardly know what the proper course would
is. Now to show the consistency OF those
brilliant State officials: The State Board
of Equalization pounceu down on assessor
Siebe like "A hawk on a young DUCK, beapeu
all sorts of censure and criticism upon him
because he did not In tue brief two months,
from the time he took Office till March l,
cure all the defects Of the assessment roll
that have been accommodating Tor thirty
years. They had no mercy upon. MIN De-
cause he was young In office, but jabbed II
into him by ordering his estimates all In-
creased. and put the city to a great expense
besides.
IL like the gall Of those fellows. / think
it would put a nightmare TO Sleep"