The record-union., 1896-11-26
FAVORS A TAX ON INCOMES.
One Of the Addresses at the Assessors
Convention.
Changes in the aW Recommended
to the Incoming Legis-
lature.

The State Convention of County AS
SCISSORS reassembled at . O'CLOCK yes
terday morning and at once went into
Committee of the Whole pending the
action of the Revision COMMITTEE
which was not ready to report.
The committee continued in its labor
of considering the revenue laws by sec
ton. Controller Colgan was present
and assisted in the deliberations OF the
body.
Everything went along smoothly un-
til the Revision Committee, IN the
words of it's Secretary, struck a snag
in Section 1881, which provides that the
Auditor shall demand of the Assessor
all personal taxes remaining uncol-
lected. The "snag" seemed to be IN
the last part of the section, winch
reads: IF, at the expiration of said
time, the Assessor has not settled for
and paid said amount or amounts into
the treasury as aforesaid, the District
Attorney must commence an action in
the proper court against the Assessor
and his bondsmen for the recovery of
said amount or amounts SO remaining
uncollected and upon the trial of such
action no defense shall be Admissible :,
except that the assessment or assess
ments are illegal, invalid or Void
A resolution had been presented to
the Revision Committee which would if
it became a law, virtually repeal the
section, and it met with the approval
of many of the Assessors present. The
officers assembled protested against the
section, which in case personal property
cd fLoA =
the Assessor should make good the
amount, without a chance to make a
defense in the courts.
Controller Colgan suggested that the
committee recommend that the section
be repealed instead of substituting a
resolution which meant repeal. Acting
upon the hint, a motion to that effect
was made.
Mr.. Beamer Of the State Board OF
Equalization was called on for an ex-
preston of his views and said the sec
ton should remain as it stood If the
section was repealed no responsibility
rested anywhere. He contended that
at the time of levying the assessment
the Assessor certainly knew whether
the tax could be collected. Assessors
often squirmed and said, How am l to
collect Sam Jones' tax? Am 1 to sell
him out? And as long as Sam Jones
wasn't sold out he would not pay the
tax" The responsibility should rest
somewhere, and where if not with the
Assessor. This was particularly ap-
plicable in large cities where evasions
would be made amounting to thou
sands of dollars each year unless the
Assessor We're held responsible for the
collection of assessments made by him.
Barham of Tehama took the same
view of the matter as Mr.. Beamer. He
said the Legislature was composed of
shrewd fellows, WHO would say: This
won't do, old boys, while you are pin
ming the other fellow down, we propose
to pin you down" Mr. Barham said
that Mr.. Siebe of San Francisco was in
favor of allowing the section to stand
if the Assessor We're allowed to make
a proper defense in court.
King of San Luis Obispo thought the
section should be amended so as to
allow the Assessors to make a defense
in court. The spirit of the law, he con-
tended, did not demand impossibilities
and if the Assessor were allowed to go
into court and show that it was impos-
sible to make the collection the section
would be excellent. He suggested that
the committee recommend that the
words "and upon the trial of such ac-
tion no defense shall be admissible, ex-
cept that the assessment or assess
ments are illegal, invalid or void" be
stricken out.
Controller Colgan produced a tabL
lated statement showing that only ten
Assessors in the State had failed to
collect every dollar of personal prop
erty tax assessed.
Mr.. Beamer thought the point taken
did not guarantee tampering with tha
section. 1t might work a little hard
ship sometimes, but where there was
personal property it could certainly be
seized and sold.
Nunan of Calaveras, who had given
Sl,50o for the privilege of assessing the
property of the people residing in Cal
averas County. took a stand with Mr.
Beamer. as did also Mr.. Spencer of Eli
Dorado County.
The question being upon the repeal o.
the section, it was lost by viva voca
vote.
Spitzer of Santa Clara said when he
failed to make collection he had