The record-union., 1893-08-31
SAN FRANCISCO ON The RACK.
Mayor EIIert and Others Address the
State EquaIizers,
Some Pointed and Significant Questions
Asked Them-Reasons for
the Decrease.

San Francisco had her day in court"
yesterday, the court being the State Board
of Equalization, and her Mayor and
some other officials underwent the toast
ing process to which the officials of other
counties had been subjected.
Chairman Morehouse Of Alameda,
whom certain San Francisco papers have
so roundly abused as been an alleged
open enemy of that city, took things quite
easily during the examination of the san
Franciscans, leaving to Beamer the duty
of prOpounding puzZling cOnundrums to
the gentlemen representing the city by
the sea. The gentleman from Yolo had
few packages Of ammunition before him,
which he utilized from time to time in
shooting holes through the arguments
submitted by the San Franciscans in de-
Tense of the valuations placed on properly
in their city.
The visitors all seemed to be impressed
with the conviction that the State board
had already determined to raise the roll
of San Francisco, while the equalizers
themselves lost no opportunity to say
that they only desired to arrive at facts,
and that if the results warranted even
reduction they would be ready TO grant it.
But it was evident that the members of
the board felt perfectly safe on that score,
and that they had piles of solid facts, in
the shape of extracts from the Assessor
reports and other sources, to off set every
argument advanced by the visitors.
Chairman MorehOuse said the San
Francisco officials had been summoned
to explain why the san Francisco assess
ment this year was lower than that of
the preceding year.
MAYOR ELLERT To THE FRONT.
Mayor Ellert first addressed the board.
The Assessor of San Francisco returned
in 1891, S3ll ,O00, 600. The State Board of
Equalization raised it to S39J, 100000 In
1892 the returns were S346, 100000, and it
was raised to S4l2, 2,U00, 900. This year he
returns S342, 900, 900. The trouble is that
the State Board of Equalization and the
Assessor of the City and County Of San
Francisco disagree as to the valuation OF
property. He said the decrease in the
personal roll could he explained by many
persons going out of business. There are
more vacant dwellings now in san Fran
cisco than ever before. 1t is a question
as to whether or not the city has been
Overbuiit. 1t was an injustice to increase
the taX-roll in 1891, and it would be a
greater injustice to increase it this year.
Mr.. Ellert denied the statement made
on the preceding day by the Assessor OF
another county that property in San
FRANCISCO was assessed at only p per
cent. of its value. SO far as personal prop
erty is concerned, it has probably not
been assessed at its full cash value. Most
of it has this year been fairly assessed
Last years personal property list footed
up So, ,oS4 900, and this year IL is So, 1856 600,
difference OF y, 100000. This was after
being passed on by the local Board OF
Equalization.
SUPERVISOR JAMES ON THE RACK.
T..
board. He said that personal proDerty
statements were partly sworn to, and
when not the, assessments were made ar
bltrarily, hence rarely too low. He be-
lieved that personal property was as
sessed higher in San Francisco than in
the interior.
He then explained the Assessors
methods of assessing real estate. and
claimed that San Francisco property,was
assessed higher than in other counties
Sometimes piece Of property may be
assessed too low and in others well up to
the full cash value. There are many
houses in san Francisco that do not net
the owners per cent. Oh their invest
ment. Many persons have removed to
Alameda, and many firms have gone ont
of business. He believed that San Fran
cisco had been fairly assessed. These are
hard times and money is short with
everyone. San Francisco is worse OFF
have nothing to sell.
Mr.. James having referred to the ex-
pense of extending the taXroll, Mr.. Bea-
mer called attention to the fact that when
this was done in the case of San Francisco
the State paid some $1,000 therefor
MR.. SWAN IN THE BREACH.
Mr.. Swan, vino is the San Francisco
member of the board, said that, although
a Stale officer, he felt it his duty to have
the truth elected as regarding values in
san Francisco. He asked Mr.. James if
the extension of new railroads north and
south had not had the tendency to take
away large portion of San Francisco's
trade and drive men out Of business there.
or cause them to reduce their stocks.
MIR. James replied that interior mer-
chants, enjoying terminal facilities.
are able to ship goods cheaper from
New FORK or Chicago than san Francisco
merchants. The effect OF this has been to
reduce the mercantile business of the lat
ter city.
In reply to Mr.. Swan, he said the build
ing OF so many new houses had reduced
the rates OF rents in San Francisco, and
property is less valuable than a few years
ago
MR.. JAMES WEALTH.
In response to Mr.. Beamer, Mr.. James
said he owned property and paid taxes in
five or six countles-Fresno, Monterey,
San Francisco, San Benito and others
Most OF it is personal properly. In Fresno
he owned the Masonic Temple. for which
he paid some years ago $50, 600. 1t was
assessed at ST 200. The building was
burned, being insured for Sl0,CO0 The
Masonic board thought the valuation too
high on the new building, and wanted to
rent the upper portion for $50 per month
The property was, he said, assessed too
high. Also the Hildreth ranch of 1900
acres in Fresno, in which he is interested.
II is assessed at s. 30 an acre. His 5000
cattle in Fresno are assessed at SO head
Mr.. James insisted that personal prop
erty in san Francisco is we'll assessed.
The Assessor cannot have personal
knowledge of the value of each mans
piano, or bedstead, or other household
property-he must take the sworn state
ments Of the owners, and cannot regulate
the value of one mans furniture by that
OF another.
Mr.. Swan contended that the Assessor
must be governed by the figures returned
by property while Messrs. More
house and Beamer insisted that it was the
Assessors duty to nix the valuations
thai the owner swears simply 10 the de-
scriptiou of property.
Ia response to Mr.. Swan, Mr.. James
said there was not much difference in the
relative proportions of the Fresno and
San Francisco valuations; both are high
enough. His San Francisco assessments
are higher than in san Benito. He las
two sections OF land there assessed at 81 25
per acre, and he is very well pleased with
the Assessors figures.
In reply TO MIR. Beamer, Mr.. James
SAID he honestly believed San Francisco
property 10 be as fairly assessed as that
OF any other county.