The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-24
DID AS They PLEASED WITH THE TAX LEVY,

oaths; Is revolutionary in its effects and is a
~ ce overriding OF the express words of
tne City charter. Against your trespass on the
mayors prerogstiYes my solemn protest is
hereby made
1t is wise thing in our Jurisprudence and
supported by the experience of ages that the
Nelo shouId exist. 1t is the one bulWark for
me people against hasty legislation, ignorance,
e1ravagance or crime. Here for this veto
power, IN IaVor OF right and honesty and econ
omy, place my foot and shall stand as a rock,
ana II needed viii yindicate my right by an
appeal to the courts
Second-The next reason for the denial OF my
power to veto is said to originate in section
81 IA OF the Political Code as amended March
T' do99. Relative to this question it provides:
must on the third Monday in September fix the
t&te OF county taxes" etc. The contention is
mat this by implication excludes the Mayor
levy legislation
The reputation of this contention will be best
S accomplished by brief summary of preceding
On April 10. 1856, the consolidation act was
passed, whereby the City and County of San
francisco were merged into a single entity, and
accerdlng to the case of Wood VS.. Election
commissioners, decided July, 1881, sis q con-
unuation of the late municipal corporation,
known as the City of San Francisco
inns charter, in article V, deals with the
duties and powers of Supervisors. Section 90
contained in that article provides: Every Or
dinanoe or resolution of the Board of Super
Vlsors, providing for the expenditure of public
aIter publication be passed by the board and
presented 10 the Mayor for approval"
Nhlle not conclusive, it is a circumstance
pregnant with meaning that from that day to
TINS every tax levy has been sent to the Mayor
Tor approval-this being the single exception
IN ali this period of forty years. This is sup
plemented by the fact that in July, 1879 my
predecesSor-Mayor A. j. Bryant-interposed
his veto OF the tax levy 1t was regularly recog-
n!zed by this body. Thereafter, in due time,
his objections were considered and finally over
ruled by an affirmative vote of ten members.
IL is rule OF construction, as old as the
English law, "That words and phrases, the
meaning of which in statute has been ascer-
tanned, are, when used in subsequent statute,
TO be understood in the same sense" Now the
facts, Tor which this rule is invoked are as
follows: The consolidation act in section II,
contained in article V, and prescribing the
duties OF supervisors, and all subsequent acts,
lncIudlEg the amendment of 1891 and OF 1898,
use substantially the same words in comforting
upon the Board of Supervisors the power TO
levy the municipal tax.
In every legislative act named there is sub
stantial identity of language. In none of them
Is there reference to the Mayors power, so that
when the amendment OF 1895 was passed II
must receive the same construction that had
been impressed upon it by the Legislature and
Supreme Court in all our preceding Legislative
history. This is true, since there is nothing in
the act of 1895 that in terms or by implication
excludes the Mayor.
Now, in the case of the People VS. McCreery,
decided January, 1868, the veto power is dis
II.
Consequently when the Legislature afterward
used the same general language to vest author
lty in this board it must be held to have used
1t in reference to the construction placed upon
these words by the Supreme Court in the case
Just mentioned. 1t is true that il was held in
that case that the levy was invalid because
levy, but section 1855 of the Political Code
doubtless in abrogation of the narrow con-
structiOn therein announced-was subsequ mt
ly passed, and is as follows: "No assessment or
n ~ nf faHy
is illegal on account OF infol mality, nor be-
cause the same was not completed within the
time required by law" This section has al
ways been in the Political code, taking effect
January !, 1873.
In Hart vs. Plum, decided 1859, it is held
that the statute directing the assessment TO be
made on the first Monday in May Is merely
directory. This decision is commented on
with approval and applied in the People VS..
+. l.. and \. Company, decided April, 1874.
1t is admitted that the general revenue law of
the State applies to this municipality. But the
rule is universally recognized ''that where by
the charter the Mayor Is q part of the law-mak
ing power his concurrence in legislative action
Is essential 10 Its validity"
1t is further admitted that the Legislature is
invested with jurisdiction as to this munich
pality. But unless the Legislature specifically
manifeSts its intent to deprive the municipality
of its rights under the charter, no change is
effected in the latter and its provisions must
control. The legislative intent must be plainly
and clearly manifested. The charter Is not to
be frittered away by frivolous construction. In
Desmond vs. Dunn, decided April, 1880, in
speaking OF the consolidation act, the court
says: "Au such charters must remain in force
until superseded or changed in the mode pre-
scribed by the constitution. In the absence of
any positive provision TO the contrary, this is
necessarily implied. But charters not
framed or adopted by authority of said cousti-
tuition need not be subject to or controlled by
general laws. Therefore, the charter of the
City and County of San Francisco, which ante
dates the present constitution, and was not
framed or adopted by authority of it, is not
subject to or controlled by general laws" This
language is approved in City OF Stockton VS..
certain insurance company, decided Oc-
tober, 1887. In the last case there was con-
fict between the Stockton charter and the
State constitution as to the time OF the tax
levy. The former was upheld, being prior in
time.
1t is said there is a conflict between section
90 OF the consolidation act and section 3714
1895. There is no more inherent conflict than
there is between sections 90 and II of the
charter Section II reads: con or before the
Pss H0 shai levy eF Nay aln etc 'ne OOAro
This gave the board discretion to make
levy on the first Monday of May. Could the
board by thus delaying its action to the last
day defeat or prevent the Mayors veto or APP
prevail? If so, then section 6S becomes i'm
peratiye as the mere within of the board, or
rather at its exercise OF q lawful discretion,
and the Mayor is stripped OF an admitted
power, without his consent and without any
default on his part. If, therefore, sections 90
and II OF the consolidation act can be harmon
lied, then the same reasoning applied to sec
lions 90 and 3714 of the Political Code will
bring them into unison. The Spring Valley
Water case, Jacobs VS.. Board of Supervisors,
decided October, 1898, in relation to the
Mayors veto as to the water rates. : not in
opposition to the views herein expressed. On
the contrary, it expressly recognizes the veto
power of the Mayor where it is clearly ex-
pressed in the consolidation act for Justice
Harrison pointedly says: "His approval is re-
quired to only certain classes of ordinances
which are enumerated in that section" {refer-
ring to section 60, which in SO many words
gives him the veto on the tax levy.
According 10 my mind, the foregoing reason
ing establishes my right to approve or veto the
present municipal tax levy. This conclusion
is held, Notwithstanding the opinion of very
distinguished attorney, handed to me in print,
last Saturday and given to some of our local
banks at their solicitation. Considering his
argument as the best that can be made on that
side, the issue is reduced TO the single one of
conflict between the charter and the code.
But it has been shown above that there is no
logical conflict. Both laws may be harmonized.
1t is not necessary, in this connection, to dis
cuss the expediency Of the veto. That is within
the jurisdiction of the Legislature. If the veto
power exists, this is pre-eminent case for its
exercise.
But it may be asked, "What is the effect of a
veto?" The answer is this Willingly conced-
ing up to this time the legality of your levy,
the charter commands that the Mayors objec-