The record-union., 1896-11-26


Equalization asked why he did so. II
was not the duty, he said, of the LIS
trict Attorney to prosecute the oehh-
quent, but the Assessor who had failed
in the collection. The section was all
right and should stand.
Mattison of Santa Cruz offered
resolution to the effect that the section
be referred to the Revision Committee
with the recommendation that an
amendment be recommended to the con-
vention, allowing the Assessor to make
a proper defense before the court, ana
that the time for making final settle
ment with the Auditor be extended from
the first Monday in July to the hrst
Monday in October.
There was strong opposition to ex-
tending the time, and Nunan moved an
amendment to strike out the extension
of time. The amendment was car
ried.
Berkey of Sacramento protested
against changing the law. He had no
fear of being obliged to pay any un-
collected personal tax in Sacramento
County, as he could collect every dollar.
The question being on the resolution
of Mattison, it was refused ADOPTION
and the Revision Committee was so no.
titled.
Section 1858, fixing the time when the
Assessor shall return the poll-taX roll
to the Auditor, came UP for discussion
but the section was lost sight Of by the
proposition TO assess pOsseSsory rights
being sprung.
Laying aside the right of the state
to assess possessory rights, it was con-
tended that the tax could not be col
lected, although the law compelled AS
SCISSORS to levy such assessments. A
possessory right was merely given to
individuals by the United States to oc
cupy certain property, such as min
ing claims or homesteads, and while
there was no doubt a value, it was in
distinct and undefnable. Very often II,
mining claims there was no personal
property, and in the case of home
steads nothing but cabin, and as the
land belonged to the Government until
a patent was issued for the same, and
as the cabin was Of no value, the as
sessment would necessarily be null.
1t was further contended that an at
tachment upon the personal property
upon a homestead. or a mining claim
was part of the contract between the
individual and the Government, and
as such the value of the possessory right
was not taxable by the State.
1t was concluded to take up the
matter later.
The hour of noon having arrived, the
question laid before the Board of Equal
iZatiCn concerning the assessment of
fences along railroads and snowsheds,
protecting the same, was taken up, and
Mr.. Beamer stated that he was ready
to report. He declared that it was no
more the duty of the board to assess the
fences along the track than it had to
assess railroad depots or the railroad
shops Of this city. AS to snowsheds, he
believed the board did assess the snow
sheds, and had an entire right to do so.
Mr.. Colgan suggested that the Sec
retary of the State Board of Equaliza- l.
tion be requested to bring in the rec
ords of the board touching the ques-
tion, which would settle the matter.
Mr.. Beamer said he had talked with
every member Of the board, and they
were unit that the board had no more
right to assess fences than railroad
lands or ferryboatS. The board had
not the shadow of a right to assess
fences.
The reply of Mr.. Beamer was salts
factory to the committee, and at 1910
p. m. a recess was taken until l O'Clock
AFTERNOON SESSION.
of
committee recommend that the word
'fraudulently" be stricken out of Sec
tion 429 of the Penal Code. The sec
ton states that Every person who un-
lawfully refuses, upon demand, to give
any County Assessor a list Of his prop
erty subject to taxation, or to swear to
such list, or who gives a false name. or
fraudulently refuses to give his true
name to any Assessor, when the same is
demanded in the discharge of the du-
ties of the office, is guilty of misde-
meanor"
Vincent explained that in his county
many men had refused to give their
names to the Poll-tax Collector on the
ground that the tax had already been
paid. In these cases there We're evil
IDENTIFY no intentions of fraud, but the
law was evaded nevertheless.
The resolution recommending that
the word be stricken out was adopted
Gibson Of Tulare offered a resolution
recommending the Legislature to draft
constitutional amendment to so be-
fore the people, exempting personal
property of the value of $3.50 or less
from taxation
Mattison of Santa Cruz opposed tbe
resolution, stating that it would lead
to endless confusion and cause indis-
criminate swearing that property was
less than $3.50 in value.
Splitter of Santa Clara thought the
section should not be tampered with.
The resolution was lost.
PROFESSOR PLEHN'S ADDRESS
Professor Carl Plehn of the Uni
Versity of California, who was pres
ent, was at this point asked to address
the convention.
he said he had been present to hear
rather than talk, and had learned a
great deal about the revenue laws
that he had been unable to learn from
any other suorce. His study of finance
hao IN fhe past been almost entirely
'heoretlcal, but comparison of the
methods of taxation between this and
o,her countries would. he thought be
interesting
Inc general property tax, he said
was the worst to be found anywhere
ihe assumption of our system of taxa-
tion was that every man should nav
according TO the benefit he received
ana that that benefit was exactly COM
iilefasurate with the property he owned
thder that system a man might come
70 California. rent set of rooms and
carry on profession nroha ll,r uroe4h