The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-22
CANNOT VETO THE LEVY
Attorney Bergin'S Report on
the Mayors Right to OPP
pose the Tax Rate.
QUOTES LAW ON THE CASE.
In Spite of the Opinion a Strong
Fight Is Being Made to Defeat
the Resolution.

Attorney T. 1. Bergin has reported to
the presidents of the local savings banks
that he does not think that Mayor Sutro
has the power under the law to veto the
50 % tax levy imposed by the Board of
Supervisors.
Shortly after the tax rate was levied the
presidents of the savings banks met and
discussed the situation. 1t was pretty well
understood that unless the levy could be
reduced the banks would lower the rates of
interest paid depositors. President Tobin
of the Hibernia Bank. President Becker of
the German Bank and President LIE Breton
of the French Bank were appointed a
committee to handle the case. They en-
gagged Attorney t. 1. Bergin to examine
into the matter and report as to the posi-
bility of securing relief against the levy
through the veto of the Mayor. and if the
measure was vetoed whether or not in case
his veto should not be overruled another
levy could be legally made.
1t was definitely known that Mayor
Sutro stood ready to veto the levy pro-
viding it was found that he had the power.
Attorney Bergin, in his report, states
that there was conflict between section
IS of the Consolidation Act, which vests the
veto power in the Mayor, and section 3714
of the Political Code, providing method
OF raising revenue for the City. After dis
cussing the wording he holds that the Po-
iitical Code repeats the expression of the
Consolidation Act. Then he cites the very
pertinent case of The People VS.. McCreery,
and notes the pertinent sentence, 1.-The
Board of Supervisors shall levy the amount
of taxes"
Back to section 3714 of the Political Code
he goes to get it hammered into its au-
thoritive form:
The Board of Supervisors must fix the rate
OF the county taxes, and must levy the State
and county taxes upon the taxable property OF
the county.
The opinion continues as follows:
In the instances quoted the Board of Super.
visors is empowered to levy. In neither in
stance is any mention made of the Mayor. Yet
the court in the case of the city of Stockton
against an insurance company held that the
ordinance making the levy was invalid with
out the approval of the Mayor. OF course il
the approval of the Mayor be necessary, he is
entitled to veto as well as to sign. The right
to sign and the right to veto spring from the
same source and depend on the same statutes.
If entitled to approve, the Mayor is equally en-
titled to dlsapprove, and such disapproval is
nothing less than to veto. While the right to
remains as to his right to exercise it in this
particular instance. That must necessarily
depend on the statute affecting the levy OF
taxes.
The opinion then goes on to quote the
statutes, and the meat of them relevant to
the case is found to be, 1.-THE Board OF
Supervisors must on the third Monday of
September fix the rate" Nothing can be
more imperative and mandatory than this.
Manifestly, exercise of the right to veto, as
secured under the terms of section 90 of the Con-
solidation Act, is utterly incompatible with the
power and duty of the Board of Supervisors to
fix the rate OF taxes on the third Monday in
September.
Then the opinion goes on to point out
what the Mayor might do with the levy if
he had the veto power:
If entitled to veto the ordinance making this
particular levy, should his veto be sustained,
he would be equally entitled to veto any and
every succeeding ordinance making the levy
that might be submitted for his approval, and
thus not only defeat operation of the provi-
sions of section 3714 of the Political Code. but
entirely defeat the levy of all City and County
taxes.
1t will be needless to dwell upon the mex
pediency. of casting suspicion or doubt upon
the legality of the levy Of the City and County