The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1896-12-10
HOPE TO CURE
A VERY BAD LAW
The Grand Jury Consider
ing the Unequal Tax
System.
Double Work Imposed Upon AS
SCISSORS and Tax Collec-
tors.
Over Half Million Dollars Held
Out of Use for Over Half
a Year.

The absurd and unjust system under
which the taxes are collected in this City
and County was the subject of discussion
last evening between the members of the
Grand Jury and the heads of those depart
ments of the City government having to
do with taxes.
The purpose was 10 discover, ii possible,
some means of correcting what is admit
ted by everybody who understands the
workings of the law to be gross discrim-
ination against and hardship upon great
number of taxpayers.
1t was hoped that some plan might be
suggested under which relief might be
obtained from the next Legislature, and a
bill will probably be drawn up repeating
the present law and substituting SONS
more equitable method. City and County
Attorney CreswelI, who was present, said
he would lend any assistance that he could
IN the matter. 1t was suggested that the
San Francisco delegation be asked to meet
with the jury and frame bill such as may
work the desired reforms in the system.
Deputy Assessor Herzer presented a
statement showing the extraordinary
workings of the law, and Auditor Brod-
erick emphasized the same in a short
address.
The latter pointed out that the system
added from $4,000 to $50, 900 annually 10
the expense OF collecting the taxes, and
that no less that $612, 900 was tied up for
from six 10 eight months this year, out OF
use by anybody, through the ridiculous
provisions OF this law.
Herzers statement showed that no less
q sum than $4,000 was added to the ex-
penses of the Assessors office alone every
year.
The law requires that personal taxes
not secured by real estate be col
lected summary at the time Of making
the assessment, and Dy the assessors. The
collection must be made in March, April
or May, before the tax levy has been fixed.
The assessors collect on the rate OF the
previous year, with the understanding
that if the rate when fixed is lower or
higher than that rate the difference will
be subsequently Strengthened up at the
time OF the regular collection OF taxes in
October Last year they collected in this
manner at a rate of 81 80 on the 500. Sub
sequently the rate was fixed al 81 % on
the 500. The taxpayers who had paid
earlier IN the year therefore had to come
forward in October and make another
payment covering the difference.
This year the Assessor collected the per-
sonal property tax at the rate of last year.
81 25 and the Supervisors subsequently
liked the rate at $l3982, and the Tax Col
lector Is bound to repay the difference
to the taxpayer, entaiLng more than
double the work upon him. The excess
has been Withdrawn from his case and has
been laying idle in the County treasury
since March and April, nine months, and
amounts to SIP, 1872 90
aside from tie tact that the Assessor
should not be the collector of IaXes, this
being the duty of the Tax Collector" said
Herzer, lit Is unjust to make one class of
taxpayers pay their tax iii March or April
when no tax rate has been fixed, when no
Board OF Equalization Las met. to whom
appeal can be made from an unjust assess
ment, while another class, the weather.
owner OF real estate, can pay his lowest
tax on personal property nine months
later, and, If he wishes to pay penalty OF
10 per cent, thirteen months later.
1.-The repeal of the law throughout the
whole State would be opposed by the as
SCISSORS of the interior, they being allowed
per cent for the collection OF personal
property taxes unsecured by real estate.
The only remedy for San Francisco would
be the passage OF an act exempting coun-
ties of the first class from the operation OF
the law as now constituted and return to
the former law of collection. Whether
this can be done legally we would leave to
the City and County Attorney to advise. -
The City and County Attorney said the
remedy could not be so easily applied, as
such exemption would be directly con-
trary TO the code. Classification OF coun-
ties could not be made for the purposes OF
collecting taxes or for any purpose except
regulating salaries. He said that the
suit of Rode VS.. Siebe, now before
the Supreme Court, called in ques-
tion the constitutionaiity of the law
OH the ground that it required the collec-
tion Of taxes before any Board of Equaliza-
ton was assembled as a court of appeals.
II the law was decided to be unconstitu-
tional that would settle the matter.
1t was decided to take what measures
might be possible to secure an early de-
cision in the case and in the meantime to
prepare bill to be presented by the San
Francisco delegation to the next Legisla-
ture to cure the present law so far as pos