The record-union., 1893-03-13
THE REASSESNMENT BILLS.
The Difference in the Measures
Pointed Out.
How Demagogues Are Attempting to
Mislead the People and Prevent
Settlement.

EBs. REcoRD-UNIoN After perusing
the press comments, and the arguments
made in both branches cf the Legislature,
it seems to me there has been no careful
analysis of the reassessment question;
therefore. the public are mlsled.
The Shanahan bill the Seawell substi-
tute and the Carpenter substitute are
identical in one respect-they all propose
to reassess the property in order to OBJ
tain the delinquent taxes.
Every person knows that to reassess
the property forever disposes of and
abandons all claim to all demands for in
terest, penalties or attorneys fees from
the railroad company for the past. These
items cut large figure in making up the
lump sum that is persistently paraded
before the public by John P. Dunn as
moneys due on back taxes, and which
the Seawell and Shanahan bills would
cut out just as effectually as the Carpen-
ter bill. If Mr.. Dunn would itemize his
statement the public could then subtract
the amount of the interest, penalties and
attorneys fees from his total, and get
nearer to the facts.
All the reasseSsment bills are to take
effect Immediately, so no matter which
passed the reassessment must be made
this year. And the base of that assess
ment must be the present value of the
property so assessed. The State Board of
Equalization could not go back and fix
an imaginary value on the property for
the different years the reassessment was
made for. The probable and reasonable
course the board would pursue would be
| in line with their action for the last three
i l. i l.,
likely to differ much from the valuation
of 1892.
The board would certainly not be
guilty of again including the Federal
franchises and fences in order to hold up
the values to the former figures, thereby
making fatal error a second time. If
the difference in the valuation per mile
for those years the taxes are delinquent,
and say the valuation of 1892 is consid
cred and the amount of the taxes on the
same is deducted from John p. Dunn's
statement, there is another large sum that
must be substracted from his grand
total.
Up to this point all three of the bills
will work exactly alike on the years that
are covered by them all.
Now comes the difference. The Seawell
bill reaches three years further back than
either of the others, and covers period
that the courts have already fully adjudi-
! CdlCu anu nave QtCldIou IuO ldAeS all pdlu.
1t is certainly folly to try to restore to
the State right of action that can only
result in costly litigation and ultimate
defeat to the State. Ii bill of such a
character should pass, it should provide
that in the event of the defeat of the
State in court the railroad company
should be entitled to judgment for costs
and attorneys fees, the State having by
law forced them to defend the same
ground a second time. All fair men
must concede this would be right. If the
Judgment was against the company, the
State would take Judgment for costs, PEN
alties, and attorneys fees. All sums
in the years included in the judgments
should be credited on said judgments.
Any other course would be dishonest.
The next point of difference between
the three bills is on the rate of taxation.
The Carpenter bill proposes to take the
rate of 1898; the Saewell and Shanahan
bills propose TO take the rate for the years
involved. Casting aside the legal ques-
tions involved and considering it from a
business standpoint, as to the dollars to
be obtained, and there is not enough
difference to quarrel over, assuming
that the State rate of 1898 will be fifty
. cents on each 500 taxable property, and
the rate will certainly be that much for the
appropriations made and to be made at
this session are enough to require even a
higher rate to raise the necessary revenue
to meet them. The average rate Of the
, State tax tor the years to be reassessed is
fifty-three cents and two and one-half
mills on each 500. This would make a
J difference of about three cents on the 500
in favor of the State and against the rail-
road company. This would be the result
under the Shanahan or Seawell bill. II
, must be borne in mind that the States
portion of the money is about one-third
of the taxes involved.
An examination SO far as possible
without great trouble shows that the levy
for county purposes in the counties
} through which the railroads run has
been gradually increasing until the rates
for 1892 were much above the average oi
3 the years the taxes are unpaid. Assum-
3 ing that the rate for 1898 will be as high
as they were for 1892, then levy of the
| 1888 rates under the Carpenter bill will
furnish greater sum to the counties in
terested than would be secured by either
the Shanahan or Seawell bills. The re.
suits to the railroad company are prac-
t tically the same, and to the people il
3 stands like this: What the State gains
: under the Shanahan or Seawell bills the
y :. counties lose. The amount involved is
1 not sufficient to justify any hitch in the
= passage OF a reassessment law.
The trouble is this: The Shanahan
, and Seawell bills provide for the levy O
q the rate for the different years when the
: laws authorizing levy for those years
: | have been repealed, and any person
r. knows you cannot revive a law by nam.
> ing the title, beside there is doubt as tC
4 the constitutionality of any such action
and the railroad company might not pay
without litigation unless the law is con
stitutional. So far as the money is con
cerned, there is no difference to the com
pany which plan prevails, and to thC
people the only difference is whether
2 small sum goes into the treasury of the
State or 10 different counties interested
o We have the queer spectacle presented u
o in the recent action of the Legislature o
0 many OF the representatives from thu
o counties interested voting for the bill
. that would give their counties the leas
y money.
o A failure to pass law will not inflic
Q any hardship on the railroad company
1 for they will have the use of the money
two years longer, the interest on which
8 will amount to over 100000.
5 The attitude of the San Francisco mem
2 bers in the Assembly deserves som
. notice. The city and county of San Fran
. cisco has but lew thousand dollars in
q terest in the unpaid taxes for county
, purposes, as there is but little railroad il
6 that city and county. All their interest i
4 in the general State portion, comprising
z about one-third the money due. Ye
y they seltishly oppose any adjustment tina
( will bring relief to the interior counties
who are badly in need of these taxes
4 some of which will have to issue bond
z if they don't get the money, and thereb.
antagonize the interior, from whom the
are constantly soliciting and receiving
patronage. The leading spirit in this i
the so-called Traffic Association, keep
q ing here their agent, one Tom Barry
: although all their pets are dead and hi
l. Legitimate labors were ended several day