The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1897-08-04
THE MAYOR
WILL VETO
THE LEVY
Provided, Of Course, That It
Is Not Scaled Down
Materially.
COMPLICATIONS MAY ARISE.
If Not Finally Fixed on Sep
TENDER l3 There Will Be
No Money.
PhELAN In A DELICATE POSITION.
He Will Try to Show the Board the
Error of It's Ways-Failing
This, the Veto.
PHELAN In A DELICATE POSITION.

1CSIcIuoy 3 III Tue L1A-
levy muddle placed whip in the hands
of the Mayor, if he chooses to use it, but
it is not an implement that a man ,th
aspirations would care to WELD.
City and County Attorney Creswell
sent down an opinion-the one asked by
the Board of Superyisors-to the effect
that the Mayor has the power of vetong
the tax levy, under a decision rendered by
Judge Ssawell and not yet passed upon by
the Supreme Court. The opinion Is as
follows:
To the Honorable the Board of Supervisors: An
opinion is requested bv resolution No. IL, S52,
third series, on the power of the board TO fix
the tax levy for the present fiscal year indie
pendent OF the action or the Mayor
If the provision of section =, article XI, of
the constitution, adopted in 1896, excepting
charters of nun icipalities from The control of
general laws in municipal affairs, applies TO
charters in existence before the adoption of
the present constitution, the Mayor would
not nave the night TO veto the ordinance or
resolution fixing the tax levy OF the City and
County OF San Francisco for the present fiscal
year, because the fixing of a tax levy to raise
revenues Tor municipal purposes is mu-
n1cipal affair, and the act OF March 81, 1897,
which is a general law and confers upon the
Mayor the veto power in this nun icipal affi,r,
would be in conflict with section &, article XI,
as amended, and therefore void.
Judge Seawell, however. in the case of Max
roper VS.. W1IIlam BrOuerlck, ne ID that the
exception contained in this amended section
OF the constitution did not apply to charters
of municipalities which were in existence
prior to the adoption of the constitution
and that such charters were still subject to
and controlled by general law.
The consolidation act of the City and County
OF San Francisco is such charter.
The case is the only one that l know of in
which the exception contained in the amend
ment to section 8, article XI of the constitu-
ton was the subject OF judicial discussion.
Thn I1dn ant in hi has hnav
viewed by the Supreme Court of the Stale. and
until such review l will assume the opinion
III that case to correct y state the law, end
therefore advise that the charter of San Fran
cisco is subject to and controlled by the act OF
March 81, 1897, and that the Board of Super
visors cannot fix the municipal tax levy for
this fiscal year independent Of the action of
the Mayor. HARRY t. CREswELL,
Attorney and Counselor.
August 3, 1897.
This would seem to place the matter in
a J.. condition where the Mayor could
block the scheme to saddle an exorbitant
tax levy on the property-owners, because
it Is thought impossible that the Devany-
Haskins com bination can secure nine
votes to pass the levy over the veto of the
chief executive of the City government.
But there are com plications.
The law requires that the Board of Su-
pervisors shall, on the third Monday in
September, fix a tate of taxation for the
ensuing year. The law is plain and clear,
they must fix the levy.
This being the case the Mayor, should
he veto the measure, invaIidates the entire
levy, and the consequence will be an en-
tire lack OF funds to run the City govern
ment and the bringing of all municipal
functions 10 a sudden stop-literally a
City without government.
Should he sign the levy, with the roar
sc ~
he will be taking chances that cour-
ageous man would hesitate to face.
This is the quandary in which the
Mayor finds himself, and he is doing
much thinking to find way out.
The board has adjourned until Septem-
Der Is and week later the levy must be
decided upon.
The only ray OF hope that seems to
shine out of the situation to show Mr..
Pnelan his way is that the board will
bring the matter up on Septic m Der 10 pass
upon 1t and give HIM chance to veto be-
fole the date upon which the final deci-
sion must be rendered. Should the fixing
of the levy be delayed in til the last day-
well, there is the rub.
The Mayor sees no way out of yetoing
the proposed levy as it now stands. He
objects to it on almost every possible
ground and freely states is objections.
almost every department could be cut
down. he said yesterday, land while it
would entail strict economy it could be
done and the pledge the Supervisors gave
kept
Half of the City offices could be run
with Tar less help than is now employ ed,
and salaries could be cut without the m
ployes suffering to any great extent. the
pay in City offices, as general rule, is far
higher and the duties far less onerous
than in the business houses of this City,
and here is where economy should begin.
Then there is the subsistence o; prisoners.
We pay over II cents per prisoner per
DAY, when there are plenty of responsible
contractors who would be willing to take
the job of furnishing supplies at 8 cents
per prisoner, or 10 cents at the outside.
III shall show these things to the board
as clearly as possible, and try to induce
1t to look at the matter in reasona BILE
and just light"
And ii it refuse to scale down the Dew
any Haskins scheduIe?' was asked.
Then there is nothing left but to veto
it, said the Mayor with PARKWAY look in
his ewes.