The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-03-09
IT'S TIMELY DISCOVERY.
The Measure Would Have Given
the County Assessors
Fat Pickings.
RESULT OF HAsTY LEGISLATION.
An Effort to Be Made in the Senate
to Kill the Objectionable
Feature.

SACRAMENTO, March Sit was pointed
out some days ago in the CALL that the
dangerous stage of legislation had been
reached. Legislators have become wearied
and do not watch the bills with the care
fulness which characterized the early days
of the session.
This is the reason that the big Joker in
the county government bill was not dis
covered until tonight. This joker is in
the interest of the county assessors and
particularly the Assessor of San Francisco.
A provision is made that assessors shall
retain for themselves per cent of all the
personal property taxes. The aggregate
would be many thousands of dollars in San
Francisco.
The first half of section 215 of the county
government bill relates to the Office of
Assessor and reads as follows:
The salaries and fees provided in this act
shall be in full compensation for all services
of every kind and description rendered by the
officers herein named, either as officers or ex-
office officers, their deputies and assistants,
unless in this act otherwise provided, and all
deputies employed shall be paid by their prin-
cipals out of the salaries hereinbefore provided,
provided, however, the Assessor shall be en-
titled to receive and retain for his own use 6
per CeIlt Oh personal property cOIlecteQ Dy
him, as authorized by section 1920 of the Poll
tical Code, ana 10 per cent of all amounts col
lected by him for poll taxes and road poll taxes,
and also So per 100 names of persons returned
by him subject to military duty, as provided
in section 1901 OF the Political Code, and the
License Collector shall be entitled to secure and
retain for his own use 10 per cent on all license
collected by him, except where otherwise pro-
vided in this act.
This provision seems very innocent when
taken alone, as safeguards for San Fran
cisco exist in the code. Section 1920 of the
code reads as follows:
The Assessor must collect the taxes on all
personal property when in his opinion said
| taxes are not lien upon real property, suffi-
cient to secure the payment of the taxes, pro-
vided that in the city and county of San Fran
cisco the Tax Collector shall collect such taxes
at any time after the assessment.
This would seem an ample protection,
but bill was introduced by Senator Nc
Gowan which reads as follows:
Section l. An act entitled can act in rela-
tion to the assessment and collection of taxes
upon personal property in the city and county
of San Francisco" approved March 1S, 1874,
is hereby repealed.
Sec. 2. All counties and cities and counties of
this State are hereby required to conform with
to the assessment, equalization, levy and col
lection of taxes on real and personal property
for revenue purposes, and all laws now in
force in relation to revenue are hereby made
applicable to all such counties and cities and
counties.
Sec. 3. All acts and parts of acts in conflict
with this act are hereby repealed.
Sec. 4. This act shall take effect immedi-
ately.
But this is not all. Assembly bill 9S2
as amended in the Assembly March 1,
/. 1895, for which bill special Assembly
Committee on Revenue Laws stands spon-
sor makes some important changes. Sec
ton $500 which stands as the safeguard of
San Francisco is amended to read as fol-
lows:
The Asses sor must collect the taxes on all
personal property when, in his opinion. said
tax es are not lien upon real property suffi-
cient to secure the payment of the taxes; the
taxes on all assessments OF, possession of, claim
to or right to the possession of land shall be