The San Francisco call., 1897-08-12
MERCHAu ARE
FRIGHTENED
May Refuse to Furnish the
City With Needed
Supplies.
Auditor Broderick Replies to the
Arguments Of Mayor
Phelan.
Claims That the Chief Executive Has
No Right to Veto
Tax Levy.

Mayor Phelan's expressed intention Of
vetoing The tax levy should it be presented
in the form recently proposed by the De-
vany Haskins combine in the Board OF
Supervisors has frightened the merchants
who are under contract to furnish the
City with supplies to the extent that they
are beginning to consider the advisa bility
of furnishing the municipality until the
matter of the tax levy has been finally
decided.
The possibility that the City will be
without supplies has aroused the Auditor
to explain his position, that the Mayor is
wrong in assuming that under the exist
ing laws he has the right TO veto the levy,
no matter what it may be-
He begins by quoting the law on which
the Mayor bases his clain of having the
right to exercise the veto power. The sec
ton is as follows:
Every ordinance or resolution of the Board
of Supervisors providing for any specific i'm
provement, the granting OF any privilege or
involving the lease or other APPROPRIATION of
public property or the expenditure OF public
moneys Except for sums less than $500, or
laying tax or assessment, and every ordinance
or resolution imposing a new duty or penalty
shall, before 1t takes effect, be presented 10
the president OF the Board OF Supervisors for
his approval. II he approves he shall sign ii,
if not, he shall return it within ten days to the
board with his objections in writing.
Then he goes on 10 say:
1t will be found tn at the act passed in the
Legislature in 1897. approved Ma rch 27, 1897,
page 100, by and through VIII ch the Mayor
claims the right to veto the tax levy, is moth
ing more nor less than another evidence of the
interference with our right TO government
under our charter or consolidation act and is
but an indirect manner of amending section
6S OF the consolidation act. While it may be
claimed it is coed law, inasmuch as we have
| a good Mayor, it Is none the less Of that class
of legislation 10 which much OF
troubles and loss of home-rule rights, and
| might be a bad law with bad Mayor. Be-
cause 1t is supposed TO serve good purpose
under good hands it is no reason that those
opposed TO legisIati interference with our
governmental rights should bow down and
accept such favors. In other words, we should
not be expected to surrender our rights for
mess of p0rridge."
am opposed 10 legislative interference with
our local rights in any sense and particularly
50 because the history of such legislation for
the past few sessions shows that san Francisco
has suffered too much therefrom, and that the
taxpayers have been placed at the mercy OF So
called general laws that are in truth ana in
fact but cial acts in application intended
to affect San Francisco only. Much Of the leg
islation is bogus, or deceptive in title, and
should be resisted and opposed By all who
The title of the act OF Marcn 27, 1897, is "An
act to require ordinances and resolutions
passed by The City council or other legislative
body of any municipality to be presented to
the Mayor or other chief executive officer of
such municipality for his approval
1t is quite evident that the Legislature or
the author intended this act 10 have the
semblance of general law, but an examina-
tion of the terms of section l will show that
section 90 of the con nsolidation act in its great
est essential is simpy amended thereby. 1t
must be considered as supersedlng not ali of
section 90, but only the latter half of it.
The provisions of tn act seem to be directed
aXn n nj ic
where it fails to be of any virtue when 1t is at
tempted to apply its provisions 10 State and
county functions, such as vetoing State or
county tax levy.
The Boards of Supervisors of each county
must, on the third Monday in September, fix
the rate of county taxes, designa ting the
mum mber OF cents on each one hundred dollars
of property levied for each fdnd, and must
levy the State and county taxes upon the tax
able property OF the county. Crhen follows
the limit of bond tax.
Sec. 3715. The action of the Slate Board OF
Equalization in fixing the rate of taxatien for
State purposes is, III the absence OF action by
the Board OF Supervisors, valid levy OF the
rate SO fixed, and imposes upon the Auditor,
Tax Collector and all other officers charged
with the performance oil any du ties under the
revenue law the same obligations as If the
Board of Supervisors had made the levy at
the proper time.
The City and County OF San Francisco is
supposed, from the above, to be governed by
the Political Code, which makes provisio
for nor reference to city tax. 1t is, there
FORE supposed that the tax to be levied will be
called county tax lew. and will include the
amount necessary for all city well as county
purposes, the lesser City being included in
the greater political designation County,
/ therefore inclined to the conclusion
that the Legis ature has constitutional
power TO delegate to May or or other officer
whose Office is strictly municipal the power to
veto State or county tax levy. Such func-
tion could be exercised only by State or
county officers. If it be otherwise, then sec
tions 3714 and 3715 OF the Political Code are
not general and uniform in their application
TO all counties OF the State.
ii my contention be right the application of
a mu icpal officers veto to county function
specifically provided for in the Political Code
and strictly general, might be questioned and
perhaps judicially declared stitutional.
Because OF the chaotic and mixed character
of the laws by which San Francisco is gov
erned the Board of Supervisors will, of neces-
sity, be obliged 10 pass an ordinance detailing
the appropriations against the various funds
and in that case the. Mayors veto power will
come into full play successfully, and should
we be sus tained the consolidation act and the
one twelfth act will enable the Mayor as
executive, and the Auditor and Treasurer, by
cooperation, 10 protect the funds against ex-
cesslve demands. Therefore an excessive levy
would be of no avail.