The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-09-12
CITY AND COUNTY TAXES,
Have the Supervisors Made
Serious Errors in the
Levy?
MAY MAKE IT A NULLITY.
Several Unwarranted Charges
Against the City Have Been AL
lowed by the Board.

IuS great CdT6 Which,
has been exercised by the Finance Com
mittee of the Board of Supervisors and the
board ITSELF in committee of the whole,
in fixing the tax levy for the fiscal year
1886, several serious errors are said to
have crept into their work and esca ped
notice, which may affect the validity of
the entire levy.
Everybody knows that the Supervisors
have been put to great extremities in max
ing both ends meet, by reason of de-
pleted treasury and overdrawn funds.
There was time in last year when it was
decided to be a polite measure to with
hold the salaries of certain City officials
and employees in order TO pay demands
against certain depleted funds. The sala-
ries so withheld amounted to $500, 900 in
the aggregate. This money was appro-
priated from the revenues of the fiscal year
just ended in ord er to silence the COM
plainings of contrac tors who had furnished
supplies to the City, but who found, when
too late, that there was no money in the
particular funds against which their de-
mands were drawn. They refused then to
furnish any more supplies made under
their contracts. There was an impending
crisis in the financial affairs of the City.
Instead of boldly meeting the situation
and finding remedy for the condition OF
things, which men of much experience in
municipal affairs insisted was certain to
present itself again in the near future, re-
sort was had to the expedient, polite
method referred to above. The money
which belonged to the employees in the City
Hall was taken to pay the debts due the
contractors.
The board, in order to pay this deficiency,
~, +l,.<I = Nf h. Eaan
year 1894-95 out of the revenues of the
fiscal year 1866. 1t was contended that
the claims of the associated creditors of
the City and County of San Francisco,
amounting to $4,000, could not be paid
on account of the constitutional inhibition
against paying the expenses of one year
out of the revenues of any subsequent
year, yet that is the very thing which IS
sought to be done under the tax levy now
about to be made. The deficiency in the
salary funds was and is a fictitious def
cheney created in following out the policy
of doing the most expedient thing, in
stead of following the law strictly.
The Fourth of July appropriation OF
$4,000 for July 4, 1894, is another item in
| category. The money was appropriated
| if not actually paid over before the opening
| of the present fiscal year.
| The Freeholders' election expenses is
another item against which many strong
| legal objections can be urged, aside from
the fact that these expenses were incurred
| in year which is past and against which,
| according to the idea of the Board of Su-
pervisors, no charges can be made to be
| paid out of this fiscal years revenues.
| The Freeholders' expenses are ltem1zed In
the levy at $8770.
The charge for the preparation of the
military roll ($1500) has no sanction in
| 1aU ;eo w e r C,Jff nf hn 70 "
Collector to prepare the military roll. The
authorization of the board (No. 5812) which
authorizes the expenditure of money for
this military roll provides for an expendi-
ture of $1192 SO, but the item in the tax
levy makes the amount to be collected in
taxes to pay it $500. This particular levy
| the board says is authorized under sections
1897-1698 of the Political Code. Section
1897 of the Political Code expressly pro-
vides that in the City and County of
San Francisco the Tax Collector shall
enroll all the inhabitants of the County
subject to military duty. Section 1898
of the Political Code provides a pen
atty for the neglect or refusal OF ot the
Tax Collector to perform his duties. The
penalty imposed is a forfeiture of not less
than $500 nor more than $1,000, to be sued
for in the name of the people of the State
by the District Attorney.
! The allowance of $4,000 for expenses of
the Finance Committee may be proper
item in the levy. but why not include an
! allowance for the Street Committee and
| all of the otner committees of the board
| 1t is possible that there may be found
some good and sufficient excuse for the in
| Guiding of all these items in the levy and
appropriation of public money, but if there
| is in one case any reason, or justice, or
sanction of law for an infringement of the
! rule in reference to the disbursement of
public money, why should it not apply in
the case of the creditors who supplied
| goods to the City, and who are yet waiting
for some evidence of the intention of the
City government to meet its just debts.
If these appropriations are not sane
toned by law it is the duty of the District
Attorney, under section 4001 of the Politi-
| cal Code, to prevent their payment, and it
would naturally seem to follow that it is
the duty OF the District Attorney to pre-
vent the collection of money on the I'M
warranted order of the Board of Super
visors, particularly when the Board or
| Supervisors has declared its intention to
| pay out the money so unwarrantably col
| lected to satisfy demands which cannot be
enforced by process of law. Section 4001
of the Political Code provides that when it
comes to the knowledge of the District At
torney that the Board of Supervisors,
without authority of law, has ordered any
money paid for any purpose, it becomes
the county for restraining the payment Of
the same, and no order of the Board of
| Superv isors therefor shall be necessary in
order to maintain suit.
| There seems to be ample provision for
the protection of the people against an
| illegal levy, and the Mayor may defeat it
| by writ of prohibition If his veto of the