San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1895-03-22
SHORT STOPS.
What the People are Saying.

the world did the City Council
come to make such a contract,
there is neither law nor sense in
it,"
1t seems that at the meeting Of
the City Council Nov. 9TH, 1894,
Alderman Mackey moved that the
proposition of l.. g. Brand to COL
lect delinquent taxes, adopted at
the last meeting, be reconsidered.
Mr.. Mackey's motion was adopted.
Alderman Newton then introduced
a new proposition from Mr.. Brand,
which was adopted, Alderman
Mackey being the only dissenting
vote.
Looking back to the meeting
prior to the adoption Of this propO-
sition, we find the following min
utes as report Of the assessment
committee:
"Your committee, having care
fully looked into the details of the
proposition of l.. c. Brand, regard.
ing the collection of back taxes,
beg leave to report that according
to Sec. 1873, page 30, Of Charter, the
city has the right to provide for
the collection Of taxes by ordi-
nance, as the Council may deem
necessary; that the collection of
back taxes will require a great
amount of work and clerical help,
and that the assessment commit
tee believe it impossible for the
city attorney, under existing cir
cumstances, to thoroughly and
properly prosecute the collection
of back taxes, and that everything
considered, it would be advisable
that this Council authorize the
mayor to make a contract with
said l.. c. Brand for the collection
Of all delinquent taxes as soon as
possible"
Adopted.
Section 1873 of the charter reads:
"The city council may and shall
have power to provide by ordi-
nance for the prompt collection Of
all taxes assessed, levied and inn
posed by this act hereby author
lied and due to said city, and to
that end may and shall have
power and authority to sell real as
we'll as personal property and
bring suit therefor in courts Of
competent jurisdiction, and may
and shall make all such rules and
regulations and pass all such Or
dinances as they may deem neces-
sary," etc. The succeeding sections
set forth the duties OF the collector
in carrying out the ordinances of
the council.
The above is the authority upon
which the Council based it's action.
1t does not require a lawyer to see
that there is not the slightest
authority given in this article Of
the charter to farm out the col
lection OF taxes, or to substitute a
collector for the regularly elected
and qualified collector of taxes.
Besides, the section requires that
whatever the council provides
shall be done by "Ordinance"-nOt
by resolution or simple motion-in
adopting the Brand proposition
they did not even comply with the
technical requirement. The whole
thing is nullity.
The contract itself is a curiosity :;
The delinquent tax lists from
July 4th, 1879 to and including the
year 1892, were turned over to Mr..
Brand. The city TO furnish him
an office for as long a time as he
was engaged in the business; the
city to turn over tax books, rolls
&c. Brand to make up state
ment OF delinquents, which should
be the property Of the city when
Brand gets through, cit won't be
worth the paper Brand to furnish
a $4,000 bond, and bring suits and
pI Divide for bonds for costs &C., and
to receive five per cent on all
money collected.
The only provision for the term
ination Of the contract is Brands
death, in which event the city will
get back its tax rolls &C!
On Dec. 10th the council minutes
read: "Petition of L. G. Brand
asking that the rolls of 1S93-94,
now delinquent, be turned over to
him for collection. On motion it
was resolved that they be turned
over to him after 60 days from