The San Francisco call., 1896-06-05

ments have been sworn to before a notary.
In fact Mr.. Herzer had never refused to
accept statement sworn to before
notary. If the property-owner appeared
in person, the deputy would probably
have sworn him even if the statement had
been sworn to before notary.
Witness did not remember being pres
ent when Mr.. Ryan presented his assess
ments, and did not participate in any
investigation of the property Of the Mar
ket-street Railway Company.
The general custom was for persons pre-.
senting statements to give them to depu-
ties in the outer Office. Quite a number,
however, presented their statements per-
sonaly TO Assessor Siebe. He denied that
only large property-owners and repre-
sentatiTes OF corporations presented their
statements to the Assessor in person. The
rule was that all statements OF over $1,000
were submitted to Mr.. Sic be for personal
investigation. If q statement was consid-
cred too low it was invariably referred TO
deputy. In the case of the Market
street Railway Company there was not the
usual entry on the statement stati ing that
the amount in the statement was too low.
No arbitrary assessment, which is ordi-
narily made in April, was made of the
railway eompany's property. Statements
were received up to the end of Jaly last
year on account of the delay in the assess
ing caused by the new law that went into
effect last year, although the law requires
that they shall all be in by the first Mon
day in July.
He knew of no deputy in the Office other
than Mr.. Briggs who had made an investi-
CATION OF the property in question. He
knew OF no subpenas being issued upon
the railway company as the law would re-
quire in such case. Such q subpoena
might, however, have been issued by Mr..
Siebe.
The witness knew nothing of the assess
ment OF franchises. He knew of no rule
for such assessment; IN fact, he knew
there was no such rule. The Assessor him
self had charge OF the assessment OF ali
franchises in this City. He did not know
of any deputy having investigated the
matter.
During the busy season of 1895 witness
said Mr.. Siebe was at the Office continu-
ally. all day and often late into the night
during which time Witness Herzer was
generally with Siebe, but he knew of no
investigation having been made by the
Assessor.
Mr.. Briggs had told the witness that he
Briggs was 10 investigate all the Market
street railway lines, but further than this
witness knew nothing of the matter.
In explanation of the course Of the AS
SCISSORS deputies in not collecting taxes
according TO the new law, which went into
effect in March, 1895. witness stated that
the necessary receipt books had not been
obtained until May of that year.
Depaty Tyrou returned with an armful
OF books from the Recorders Office and
was again put on the stand. A book con-
tanning an entry of deed OF trust from
the Union Trust Company, dated July y,
1890, was submitted by Mr.. Clunie in evil
dence.
Judge Wallace at this juncture inter
rupted the witness to inquire of Mr.
Glunie what he intended to prove by all
this testimony. Clunie contended that
these records would show various transac-
tions Of the railway company, issuing
bonds, etc, which Siebe must have known
OF and which should have prompted him
TO make investigation OF the company's
property, and that having tailed to do so,
the Assessor had neglected his duty. After
delving further into the records, Deputy
Tyroll was again sent downstairs for some
OF the ponderous tones of the Recorders
Office, necessary for the further enlighten-
ment of the court.
Chief Deputy Herzer returned with his
book OF franchises and his rules for the
employees in the Assessor Office. The rules
made no provision in regard to the assess
ment of franchises.
Mr.. Clunle here announced that he had
finished his case, except producing the
books that Secretary Willcutt refused to
bring before the court. Mr.. Clunie was
willing to rest his case here. provided he
might later produce the books when the