The San Francisco call., 1896-04-23
TO COLLECT
BACK TAXES,
Petition for Writ of Man.
date Against Asses
Sor Siebe.
MR.. CLUNIE'S ATTACK.
He Wants the Assessor 70 Col
lect On Thirteen Millions
for Last Year.
THE MARKET.sTREET LINE
A Railway Official Says That the
Supervisors Are the Court of
Last Resort.

Andrew J. Clunie yesterday filed in the
Supreme Court writ of mandate asking
that Assessor Siebe be required to collect
the taxes on $13,OO0,000 alleged to be due
by the Market-street railway system on
the taxes for 1895, which escaped collection
by reason of alleged false representation of
the railway company.
Dvested of the necessary legal verbiage,
the petition recites that the capital stock
of the Market-street Railway Company is
SIS, 600, divided into 187, 500 shares of
the par value of 500 each, and that on and
since the first Monday of March, 1895, the
company has been the owner of real and
personal property of the value of
ST., 500,0 900. 1t is alleged further that the
company, through its officers and for the
purpose of and with the design of evading
taxation on its property for the fiscal year
commencing July 1, 1895, willfully and
falsely represented TO the Assessor that
the full cash value of its property did not
exceed So, $50, ,S66, whereas the said officers
knew that il was not less than $17, 900 900.
The petition recites further that the diff
ference of 1916, 154 between the actual
assessment and the SIT 500. 900 of alleged
actual value has escaped taxation by con-
cealment on the part of the company, and
has entailed loss of $500, 600 or there
abouts to the revenue of the City. 1t is
recited further that the reason why the
application is made primarily before the
Supreme Court is that the matters here in
volved are of great public Importance, and
that it is absolutely necessary that the
same should be speedily decided in order
tho he rio 70 nf ha he
tected and that the time consumed by pro-
ceeding in the Superior Court would be SO
great as to rerder the proceeding of no
avail if carried in the lower court.
The petitioner asks the court for writ
of mandamus directing John D. Siebe, as
Assessor, to assess the property upon the
difference of $l3. .000,0 900.
Mr.. Clunie said yesterday that the stock
OF the Market-street Railway Company
was selling in the open market for SIS a
share and that on this estimate the value
of the system would approximate $4,000,
600. de added that be represented clients
who had furnished various City depart
ments with supplies and to whom the City
was indebted to the extent of half mil
lion dollars, which could not be paid be-
cause the funds had been exhausted and
because the law prohibits the City and
County from using the funds of ore year
to paw claims contracted in another year.
street Railway Company had paid its Just
taxes the re would have been no deficiency
in the funds.
Assessor Siebe was asked as to his
opinion of the affair. He replied that he
had treated the Market-street Railway
system in the same manner as he had
treated every one else and had assessed
them on the same basis.
Il have increased the assessment on the
Market-street Railway system every year."
he said. II have been watching their i'm
provements very closely, and nothing has
escaped me. Last years assessment was
$500, 900 more than that of 1894. 1t was
So, 1000 in 1894 and So, ,962, 900 in 1895.
This year it will be about 81, SOC, 900.
have not yet received any statement from
the company, and when 1 do l shall not
be guided by it. tried them in the same
way as all other corporations and firms.
Il don't love the Market-street Railroad
Company, and have no reason to love it,
for it had green ticket out against me at
the last election. | assess according to
values and not for buncombe. So far as
the $l7 ,000, 900 of bonds is concerned. they
have not been sold, and therefore do not
represent value. That is another of those
tricks of Huntington"
Mr.. Siebe added that he had received
two letters from Mr.. Clunie, but had paid
no attention to them.
The following is a copy of the second
letter:
SAN Francisco March 26, 1896.
Hon. John d. Siebe, Assessor of the City and
County Of San FraYcisco-DRAR SIR. Several
days ago l wrote you concerning certain of
your duties as Assessor. Since then have made
an examination OF the assessment roll, as pre-
crepaucies therein, TO which desire to call
your attention in order that the mistakes of
last year may be corrected and their recur-
renee this year prevented.
The particular matter which fir,a
] desire TO call your attention is your manner
OF assessing the property and franchises of
street Railway Company Spring Valley Water
Company, Sutter-street Railway Com pany. san
Francisco Gas Light Company, Pacific Tele-
phone and Telegraph Company California
Electric Light Company, and the objection I
make to the assessed valuation of their prom
erty as returned by you applies to great mum
Der of other corporations, as can be readily
seen by reference to the roll and their articles
of incorporation and the quotations of the mar
ket values of their stock
This objection is that you have failed to
assess the property and franchises of these cor
porations at their full cash value, which, by
notices issued by you, is defined as follows:
The term full cash value means the amount
at which the property would be taken in pay
melt of a just debt due from solvent debtor;
or, in other words, If taken in exchange for
Uniied States coin."
OF the franchises of corporations have fre-
quently been before the Supreme Court OF the
Stale, and mode OF determining the value OF
the same by deducting the cash value OF all the
real and personal property of the corporation
from the market value of its capital stock has
been approved in the cases of San Jose Gas
Company vs. January, 81 Cal, GA; Spring
Valley Water Company VS.. Schottler, 6Z Cal,
90; Spring Valley Water Works VS.. Barber, 80
CAL, 80; but the rule here sanctioned does not
seem to have been followed by you in making
your assessments.
Section 364s. Political Code, provides: "Any
property willtully concealed, removed, trans
ferred or nnisrepresented by the owner or
agent thereof TO eyade taxation upon discoy-
cry must be assessed at not exceeding ten
times It's value, ana the assessment so MADE
must not be reduced by the Board of Super
Yisors."
Section 3649: "Any property discovered by
the Assessor 10 have escaped assessment for the
last preceding year, if such property is in the
ownership or under the control of the same
person who owned or controlled it for such pre-
cedfng year, may be assessed at double its
value"
The provisions of the code have been con-
strued in Biddle VS.. Oaks so Cal. 95: city of
San Luis Obispo vs. Petit, 81 Cal. 499
Constituting them with reference TO the fail
ure OF the corporations referred to to pay
taxes upon the full cash value OF their prom
erty and franchises last year, / am of the
opinion that. if the failure to assess was the
result of coneealment or Misrepresentation on
the part OF said corporation or their agents,