The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-09-30

into the county salary fund; provided
that not m ore than l per cent shall be
charged for collecting the first $25, 900 SO
collected, and one-fourth of per cent for
all sums over that amount"
From this it can readily be seen that
the only charge that can be made by the
county for dong this work for the city
is 1 per cent on $25, 900 and one-fourth of
l per cent on all above that amount.
Nowhere in the act is any authority
given for paying any more than this for
this WORK. and this section specifically
declares that no more can be paid. There
is no provision in the law for paying the
county assessor a comm mission or any
other compensation for his work, so the
$4,000 named as being part of the added
expense will not be paid at all. Then
the cost of additional work by the county
auditor and the county tax collector,
as provided for in the section above
quoted, which is the only compensa-
ton provided for, would not be $500 on
this years assessment, as stated, but
would be about $500. The total figures
in the city tax collectors books are not
yet quite complete, but it IS safe to Say
that the total assessment will approxi-
| mate $48. $40, 900 and this computation is
based on That figure. rhe statement that
the county assessor would receive $4,000
as a com ission for collecting the per-
sonal properly tax is erroneous, for the
law on that subject plainly declares that
he shall receive no com missions on those
| collections. 1t is true that the present
| county assessor IS at present contrasting
! that law, but there is every prospect that
| it will be sustained by the supreme court,
| the district attorney havin g filed a brief
| in the case that seems we'll nirh invul-
| nerable. but even If it be not sustained,
in making this computation at the pres
| emit time it Is absurd to presume tn at the
supreme court will render a decision in
the future that will permit the introduc.
| ton now OF an amount that Is plainly
| prohibited by law. Thus it Is seen that
| in the statement made that there would
| be a total cost paid to the county by the
city for this work of $3.50, the true cost
| being but 1880. As regards the collection
| of licenses, there would be no added ex-
| pense, Tor under the new law the license
| collectors who call upon the business
men and get the money, would be dis
| pensed with and the license payers would
| go to the chief of police and pay their
| licenses as other taxpayers pay their
| taxes, which would bs sensible and
| economical arrangement. 1t would pos
sibly be necessary to retain the license
inspector whose salary is $3.50 per year.
The argument that the increase In val
| uation will cause a loss to the city by
augmenting the amount paid to the state
| is speciOus in the extreme. because the
| raising of :hs county assessors valuation
| to equal that of the city assessor is a
| matter that can be avoided but a short
time longer. Every person, every COM
| mittee and every delegation that has ever
| appeared before the state board of equali-
cation to protest or argue against the
! raising of this county's assessment has
been confronted with this question: eff
your county assessor has placed the value
OF your city property at the highest notch
for taxation purposes. why do you allow
your city assessor to make it so much
higher. The board has several times rails
ed the assessment for this reason. and
time and again has warned this county
that it would make large advances If this
grdvsly dou Dtful il this state of affairs
will be permitted to prevail even for an