The San Francisco call., 1896-05-06
UNPAID TAXES DEMANDED
Clunie'S Suit Argued Before the
Supreme Court Yes
terday.
An Action to Compel the AsSsesorsto
Do His Duty by the Market.
Street Company.

The application of Andy Clunie for a
writ of mandate to compel the Assessor to
reassess the property of the Market-street
Railway Company was on hearing in the
Supreme Court yesterday morning.
Cluuie represented himself; Friedenrich,
of Napthaly, Friedenrich & Ackerman, rep
resented the Assessor, and Foshay Wake T
represented the railway company.
The hearing vas upon demurrer to the
petition interposed by Friedenrich. In his
application for writ Clunie set forth that
last year, 1895, the property of the Market
street Railway Company was assessed for
So, 900 900. This same company has issued
bonds, secured by its stock, TO the amount
of ST., 500 900, and it has a capital stock of
nearly $9,0O0,000. Because of misrepresen-
tation s, said the petitioner, the assessment
had been put down TO $3, ,000, 900, and the
Assessor accepted it as such.
Mr.. Friedenrich opened the argument.
His point was that the decision of the
Board of Equalization Is final, and no mat
ter how unjust, it cannot be reviewed by
the courts. To hold otherwise, he said,
would be to make of every court in the
Stare board of equalization to pass upon
all assessments. He said if the Assessor
or the members OF the Board of EquaIiZa-
ton had not done their duty, the remedy
was to remove them.
Mr.. Clunie relied principally upon q
former decision of the Supreme Court, in
which the law is quoted as directing that
any property escaping assessment in one
year shall be assessed the next year at ten
times its value. He contended that the
law required every man to bear equally
the burden of taxation, and his assess
ment should be based upon the full cash
value of the property assessed. In the
case of the Market-street Railway Com
pany this had not been done, he said in
stead of bearing a burden of $17, 500, 600,
the actual value of the property, the COM
pany paid only on So, 900 900.
The result of this assessment and the
result of this false valuation, Clunie con-
tiuued, has been to increase directly the
burden of taxation upon everyone in San
Francisco, and so it cannot be valid as
sessment.
Judge Garoutte then asked if Mr.. Clunie
would attack the assessment if the Board
of Equalization had passed upon it and
raised 1T to $5,000,0OO. Mr.. Clunie said
that If such had been the fact he could at
tack it anywhere when it appeared that
property admittedly worth SIS, ,000, coo ad
been assessed at SIS, ,000, 600.
The court was principally interested in
the powers and jurisdiction of the Board
OF Equalization. 1t took the position that
the decision of the Board of EQUALIZATION
contended that the Legislature had di-
rected that all property be assessed at its
full cash value. 1t had provided the
Board of Equalization as a means of arriv-
ing at the value Of property, but ir giving
the power to regulate assessments it linn
tied that power by directing that all prop
erty be assessed at its full value. Should,
therefore, property be assessed below its
value, Mr.. Clunie contended he he could
review the proceedings in the Supreme
Court or in any court.
Mr.. Clunie then took up the question of
''abuse OF discretion" in the case of the As
SCISSOR. He claimed that when an Assessor
goes out to assess property he is not merely
10 put any value on 1t; he must assess it
at its full cash value, and when he does not
do 50 he is abusing his discretion and
mandamus is proper remedy in the case.
In conclusion Mr. Clunie said that it
rested with the court to determine whether
or not there had been a valid assessment
last year, and whether or not the property
was assessed at it's actual value. Ii evil had
been COM mitted the court could then di-
rect the Assessor to remedy the evil If
his position should be upheld, Mr.. Clunie
said, it would mean the payment of $780,
coo to the property of the State which had
not been paid.
In closing Mr.. Friedenrich argued that
Mr.. Clunle's position-that the court could
inquire into the action of the Assessor and
the validity OF the assessment-would be to
make the court board of equalization to
inquire into every assessment in the State.
Further, Mr.. Friedenrich claimed that
the property had not escaped assessment.
The question was whether or not the as
sessment was Of full value, and that.
Mr.. Freidenrich claimed, was for the
Board OF Equalization to determine. If
the Assessor had done wrong there was a
proper remedy in the case.
In closing all argument Clunie said he
would be satisfied whichever way the
court decided. His object was to find out
definitely who was responsible for these
false assessments. He said afterward that
if the writ be denied, thereby throwing ell
responsibility on the Assessor and the
Board OF Equalization, then he will go
after the Assessor.