The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-09
HIGHER TAXES THE ORDER.
EXPRESSIONS of Opinion on
the Heavy Increase in
the Levy.
CAN THE MAYOR VETO IT?
Despite Efforts of the Minority the
Eight Would Not Reduce APP
prOpriations.

The increase in the tax levy for the
coming year, as passed by the Solid Eight
OF the Board of Supervisors at their meet
ing Saturday, has caused a storm of de-
nunclation from the taxpayers generally,
and it is safe to say that this last imposi-
ton will go on record as the most unpop-
ular measure yet devised by this combina-
ton. In the face CT still pending depre-
citation in property values decrease in
stead of an increase in the rate of taxation
was apparently expected.
AS heavy taxpayer, member of the
Board of Freeholders and a man inter
ested generally in the affairs of the mu-
nicipaI government, Stewart Menzies was
asked last evening his opinion of the in
creased levy. Mr.. Menzies said:
The levy is needessly high
high. There is no excuse Tor such work, but
the taxpayers are getting Just what they bar
gained for. Can anything better be expected
OF a majority of the present board? Ii is done,
and as far as l can see there is no way out of
il. l am positive that the Mayor has no au-
thOrity to veto the order, and so it will have to
stand. If the taxpayers OF San Francisco like
this sort of thing, they are at liberty to have il
as long as they desire This is what comes
from handing the City government over to u
hoard of professional politicians pothouse
iobbers, low lived and imbecile wretches who
would starve away from the municipal teat.
The taxpayers know this well enough. For
years they have paid high rate of taxation to
keep alive that heterogeneous mass of scum at
the City Hall: 1t is the political parasite who
eats up the Citys finances.
The expense OF running the City govern
ment is just about double what it would be
under clean and honest administration of
affairs. Nearly every department could get
along with very material reduction in its
present force; and then look at the salaries
paid. How many clerks in City Hall are worth
more than $50 or $50 per month? OF course
there are some, but how many? What would
merchant offer some of those heelers who
are drawing fat salaries for doing nothing?
Fifty dollars month, perhaps. The fact is,
there are so many leaks in the present system
that the taxpayer, in many cases, is kept on
the very brink of ruin in order that lot of
political mendicants may be supported in
idleneSs. II the taxpayer would have q rea-
sonable levy and fair business prospects let
him begin right, and purge the municipal
body of the pests that are eating out its life.
Supervisor Hobbs fought the increase as
long as fighting was of any use. His op-
position was due to the conviction that it
would work great hardship to the small
holders, who will bear the burden of the
raise. He thought that it would be wiser
to cut down some of the appropriations
and make up for the reduction on the
next year than to increase the taxpayers
burden. Mr.. Hobbs said last evening:
There was no need at all of this increase and
don't blame the taxpayers for going on record
with large-sized objection. Only an utter
disregard for their interests would have die
tated so reckless policy Some of the big ap-
prOpriations could have been reduced as well
as not.
The park, for example, has never had $780,
600 before. 1 am not against improving the
park and believe i'll giving all we can consist
emily. wanted to cut the appropriation down
TO S256,000, and then add the reduction to
next years allowance. Park patrons are not
actually suffering for a new band stand, a
bicycle track to the ocean or museum annex.
These improvements could have been post
poned for year as well as not. There is $685.
600 for dlpsomanla hospltaI. l proposed 10
reduce this by $4,000. Altogether $4,000
or $500, 900 might have been saved and tackled
on to another year, thus avoiding an unneces-
Bary increase in the levy.
Supervisor Dimond said that he could
see no good reason for the increase and
deemed it a most iniudicious move-one
that would fall heavily upon the taxpayer
generally.
For the Washington-street buildings he
from 100000 to $48, 600. His desires, how
ever, were set down with those of Taylor
and Hobbs, and by the Solid Eight RECALLED
to the limbo of minority wants.
Supervisor Taylor said that the increase
was all wrong, but that the minority could
only enter a strenuous protest and abide
the result of a majority vote. He did not
know whether the Mayor had authority to
veto the order or not, but was of the
opinion that he had no such authority.
There was no reason at all for increas-
ing the levy" continued Mr.. Taylor.
Several of the big appropriations could
have been cut down as well as not.'
Attorney Henry Clement thought that
the levy was an outrage upon the tax-pay-
ers, and that the Solid Eight ought to be
made to suffer for their RECKLESS and I'M
scrupulous policy" He, too, was doubt
full of the Mayors authority to veto the
order, and intimated that good way to
avoid repetition of the wrong would be to
so reform the municipal government as to
operate ii on basis of decency and
economy.