The San Francisco call., 1895-11-05
Arguments Concerning Their Con.
nection With the Tax
Levy.
ATTORNEY REED IS QUIZZED
Mr.. CreSwell Tells How Mayor Sutro'S
Veto Could Tangle Up the City
Government.


hear the legality OF the Mayors vetoing
the tax levy discussed before the Supreme
Judges sitting in banc Nearly every Office
in the new City Hall had representative
present, while numbers OF practical poll
ticians were thereto learn when their fol-
lowers would be likely to be drawing
money from the Treasurer.
Judge McKinstry represented Mayor
Sutro, and defended that gentleman's
position. He began speaking at Ii o'clock,
and occupied over an hour in showing how
the Mayor had the right to veto the tax
levy.
He contended that the consolidation act
should be read in conjunction with the
revenue provisions OF the State laws. The
consolidation act, he showed. gave the
Mayor the right TO veto the tax levy.
This right, he claimed, had never been
taken away by subsequent legislation, ana
hence remained.
He quoted many cases to uphold his
position. Some of these seemed apt and
others very far-fetched. At the conclusion
OF his argument a recess was taken till 2
O'Clock, and then City Attorney Creswell
urged the position of Mr.. Truman
Mr.. Creswell argued that a decision of
the Supreme Court in the case OF the Saw
-
had said that where provisions of the Po-
htlcal Code relating TO revenue and the
assessing and collecting OF taxes were ap-
pilcable to San Francisco they repealed
everything in the consolidation act bear
ing on the matter of revenue. This decis-
ion, he declared, was based on section Is
OF the Political Code, which provides that
every act, whether consistent or inconsist-
ent with similar sections of the Political
Code, IS repealed and abrogated by the
passage OF the Political Code when IL re-
fers to any matter covered by that code.
Mr.. CresweH paid no attention TO the ar
guments advanced by Judge Mckinstry.
Instead he forged ahead on theory OF his
own, which he proceeded 10 expound.
THE tax levy is an essential part of the
revenue system" he said. The Political
Code establishes complete system for
collecting revenue, and therefore by the
section OF which l have just spoken that
portion of the consolidation act referring
to the tax levy is repealed.
Every section of the Political Code
bearing on revenues strengthens my argu-
ment," he continued. Section 3714 re-
| quires the Board of Supervisors to fix the
tax rate on the third Monday in Septem-
ber, which fell this year on the 18th OF the
month. Section 3731 requires the Auditor
TO take from the Assessor each book con-
tanning the assessments, estimate the taxes
| due from each person and turn over all the
books so prepared 10 the Tax Collector
According to section 1892 this must be
done on or before the first Monday in
October, which this year fell on the 7th.
NOW, this entire arrangement was made
without a word as TO the Mayor. Now see
how all these express commands OF the
Political Code will be upset if the consoii-
dation act holds in regard to allowing the
Mayor the veto power.
''If the Mayor has the right to veto, he
has ten 6aVS nn6ar the NnnS0li6otIn
or till September 26, in which to consider
the levy. Under the law the board would
be obliged to enter his objections among
the minutes of the journal and publish
his veto. Then Fthe 9th the board
would meet. II, as in the present board.
the vote stood to 4, the veto would be
sustained, new levy would have to be
fixed, and then published for five DAYS.
This would require till Wednesday, Octo-
Der 2. 1t would then be submitted TO the
Mayor. He would haye.te ten days in which
to act. or until October II. Ii. on the tenth
day, he vetoed the levy again, the veto
would have to be entered on the journal
and published, which would cause delay
till October IA.
''If, then, the veto should be overruIed
and the tax levy fixed il would be seven
days after the taxes were due TO the City
and seven days after the time when the
Auditor is compelled by law to turn over
computations made showing the amount
each man owes.
The Auditor could not have done this.
He would not be empowered to make his
estimates from rate that was anticipated
as probable. There are seventy-eight
81, coo taxpayers. The task OF estimating
the taxes OF these people is very heavy
and requires all the time allowed. OF
course if the tax levy was not fixed till
October Il it would be utterly beyond the
bounds OF possibility to have the books
ready for the Tax Collector on October 7,
even if there were no labor coupled with
preparing them.
''Thus you see" Mr.. Creswell continued.
''if the Mayor has right to veto the tax
levy then he destroys by the exercise of
that right the operation of the revenue
law as arranged by the Political Code. In
order to give Mayor Sutro this right
sections 373! and 1872 OF the Political Code
must be obliterated from the statutes"
Mr.. Cresweu then showed the deplora-
bic state of affairs bound TO ensue should
confusion such as he outlined be possible
The Mayor could make it i'm possible for
TIE City to pay the demands necessary for
the maintenance of jails, hospitals and the
Almshouse. He could cripple everv
branch OF the City government. The City
Attorney declared emphatically that he
was certain the lawmaking power had
never contemplated clothing the Mayor
with such vast authority.
There was quite a stir when Mr.. Cres-
we'll sat down and c. Wesley Reed arose
to present arguments in support of Judge
McKinstry's position. He was soon in
very trying position, finding himself in
contention with several of the Judges on
matters OF law. With one or two excep-
tions the entire Supreme bench began TO
bonn bard him with questions.
The position would have been trying
one for even a veteran in legal battles
Mr.. Reed did nobly in his unequal contest
and expounded his points, placing them
TO the best advantage.
He claimed that the law passed by the
last Legislature providing that all cities,
including San Francisco, should be amen
able TO the State revenue acts was special
legislation. This, he held, was true be-
cause San Francisco was the only city
affected by the new law, and it had been
made to affect San Francisco only.
This was the excuse for some question
ing from Judge Henshaw. He wanted to
know If the law of 1895, which said the
revenue laws should apply to San Fran
cisco was not constitutional II so, he
wanted to know whether it was unconsti-
tuition al IN form or in substance, and sug-