The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-31
Suit to Recover Moneys
Contributed Under
Protest.
Attorneys Sydney V. Smith and
A. N. Drown Represent
the Corporation.
Assistant City Counselor Rhodes
Borden Gives a Homely but
Forcible Illustration.

The legal battle between the banks and
Assessor Siebe is still on, the most holly
contes ted point relating to the payment
of the personal property tax. Several
suits against the City and County are now
pending for the recovery of large sums of
money, the latest being that of the San
Francisco Security Savings Bank, which
seeks TO srecover $8398 SO that was paid
under protest.
The complaint sets forth that the Of
tcers of the bank made up a statement of
the assessable property of the bank at the
proper time and forwarded the same to
Assessor Siebe. offering to pay the sum of
S337S as taxes, but that be subsequently
informed the bank that he wanted more
than $4,000 additional from them and that
they were compelled to pay the same,
though they did so under protest, and now
demand that their money be refunded to
them.
Attorneys Sydney V. Smith and A. n.
Drown represented the bank at the argu-
ment in Judge SeawelPs court yesterday
and drew attention to the fact as set forth
in the complaint that the sum of about
$500, 000 alleged to have been discovered
by the Assessor as belonging to the bank,
consisted of loans and credits owing and
due to the bank secured by pledges of
shares OF stock of corporations organized
under the laws of California and secured
by mortgages on real estate in this State,
or by pledges on bonds OF municipal cor
porations in this State, which in the
opinion CT the managers Of the bank are
not taxable under the laws of California.
IF 10
preme Court were read to sustain the
view oil the bank officers touching the
non-taxable qualities of the personal
property here mentioned, and it was fur
Their contenGed that in any event the
Assessor had no right to 60 behind the
return made by the taxpayer. or as the
Assessor would in such cases denominate
the "taX-dodger."
Assistant City Counselor Rhodes Bor-
den represented the interests of the City,
and In the answer showed the position of
the municipal government. The answer
admits that the statement referred TO by
the bank was received by the Assessor,
but adds that Assessor Siebe learned on
the 18Th of June. 1885, that this statement
wasincorrect and that the officers of the
bank had omitted and concealed about
$500, 900 from their list of assets; that
thereupon 0. D. BALDWIN, the president of
the bank, was notified that the existence
reading the report furnished by the bank
to the State Bank Commissioners; that
Mr.. Baldwin appeared before the Assessor
and admitted that the bank owned the
said solvent credits, but claimed that they
were not lawfully taxable in this State;
that Mr.. Siebe told him that the said sol
vent credits would be assessed to the bank,
and that Mr.. Baldwin went away appar-
entity satisfied to let the assessment be
made and to leave the lawfulness of the
assessment to the decision Of the courts.
In his argument Mr.. Borden treated Is
dictum much that was said in a recent
Supreme Court decision with regard to
the restriction of the Assessors power to
arbitrarily" raise the assessment of a
property-owner who has returned a state
ment which the Assessor believes to be
incorrect. 1t would hardly be contended
by counsel for the bank, he thought. that
the Assessor would be left powerless to
correct paipable errors, or that the
Assessor is bound to accept as true anv
chooses to forward to his office In this case
the president of the bank had been called
before the Assessor and had ad tilted
that the bank owned the solvent credits
under consideration, but had objected to
having them put on the statement of
assets because in his opinion they were
not lawfully assessable in this State.
A similar state of affairs might BE- i'm
agined in the case of John Doe, who made
return that he owns ten horses and subse-
quently the Assessor learns that Mr.. Doe
actually has twenty horses in his corral.
The property is called up and to
the usual inquiries responds: Yes, it is
true that L own all of those horses. but ten
of them are spotted horses and in my
opinion spotted horses are not taxable
under the laws of this State" so he re-
fused to put them on the list OF assets and
still refuses to do So even after his atteD-
ton is called to the matter. In the opin-
ion of Mr.. Borden the Assessor would
have the power to correct the statement
OF property and to collect the full amount
justly due for taxes.
During the discussion it was constantly
made apparent that the difficulty of col
ecting taxes on personal property is
growing and that the tendency is to col
lect more and more on land values, for the
reason that personal property is elusive
and can easily escape taxation, whereas
real estate can always be found and can be
made to pay all that is Justly charged
against it. Judge Seawell took the mat
ter under AMUSEMENT.