The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1895-11-21
THE TAX-LEVY DECISION.

There is no great surprise that the Su-
preme Court has upheld the tax levy made
by the Board of Supervisors of San Fran
cisco, but it will be none the less interest
ing to read the opinion which the court
has half promised to hand down in sup
port of the decision. 1t will be interesting
to learn, among other things, upon what
ground of public policy it is deemed wise
to uphold statute which provides a
uniform system of taxlevying by bodies SO
differently constituted that it seems diff
cult to imagine how uniformity of pro-
cedure can be properly secured.
1t is assumed that the Supreme Court
has rendered its decision on the basis of
the act passed by the last Legislature pro-
viding that the power to levy taxes shall
reside wholly with county boards of super
visors, including those of consolidated
cities and counties. Of course this was
meant to include San Francisco, and in its
decision the court seems to have followed
the strict letter of the statute. The ques-
ticn of public policy seems not to have
been considered at ALL
If the court did take literal constrnc-
ton of the law as the basis for its decision
it upheld a strangely homogeneous state of
things. With the exception of San Fran
cisco each county of the State has a
board of supervisors composed of five
members. The board selects one OF its
members as presiding officer. He has no
duties whatever apart from those OF a
supervisor; he is not elected as a distinct
and separate officer of the county; in the
board he can vote as any other member,
but he has no power of veto, and in no
sense is greater check upon the acts of
the board than any other member; his
duties are not of municipal character
his position and authority are in no sense
analogous to those of a mayor.
On the contrary, in these counties are
incorporated cities and towns having each
a mayor and board of trustees or coun-
cilmen. In such cases the mayor has the
veto power, which the chairman Of a
board of supervisors has not; and the
mayor may exercise this power in vetoing
tax levy made by the board. All this
makes safe and harmonious scheme, and
uniformity of procedure is essential among
like kinds of local subdivisions of the State
government.
The so-called Board of Supervisors of
San Francisco is not really board of
supervisors, but is board of councilmen.
If it were really board of supervisors it
would not have exclusive charge of munich
pal affairs, but there would be board of
councilmen to perform that duty. Being
a board of councilmen it is subject to the
ordinary and universal conditions attach
ing to such boards. AS board of council
men it has mayor to preside over it and
exercise a check upon its acts by means of
the veto. To abolish this function of the
Mayor by statute or otherwise is to destroy
an excellent reason for his office. If this
function is abolished in the case of San
Francisco it must be abolished also in the
case of every other city of the State, else
the statute abolishing it is special legisla-
ton, not uniform in its operation and
therefore unconstitutional. IT must lack
uniformity of operation whether viewed
from the standpoint OF its effect on boards
of supervisors or that of its effect on boards
of councilmen.
For these reasons the public will expect
the Supreme Court to give it much-needed
enlightenment. An immediate effect of
the decision will be to hasten the work of
adopting a new charter 1t seems strange
that in all that has been said so far regard
ing the need of such an instrument it is
assumed: First, that an honest mayor is
needed to serve as check on the super
visors; second, that we are more likely to
elect an honest mayor than an honest
board of supervisors. This presents about
as amusing situation as the ordinary
mind can conceive.