The San Francisco call., 1897-09-05

why the omitted items should not be in
| serted he replied that in his opin ion the
| mortgages and other evidences of indebt-
! edness reported to the Bank Com mission
ers are exempt from taxation in this State.
Assistant City Attorney Borden, in his
argument of the case, con tended that the
bank officials had no right to pass judg-
ment on what Is and what is not assesSa-
Bile in this State, but that 1t is their duty
to make a truthful return of all their as
sets and leave to the courts a determ ina
tion of the legal status OF the assessment.
He illustrated his position by saying that
8 man who owns twenty horses could with
equal propriety return only ten of the m
on his list OF livestock, and if the Assessor
should insist on putting all the animals
on the list then the owner OF the horses
might say that ten OF them were spotted
horses, and he thought that spotted i.orses
are or ought to be exempt from taxation
in California. Such an allegation would
be as reasonab Bile Mr.. Borden thought as
Tor the bank officials TO admit that they
had the property mentioned and refuse TO
make return of the same to the Assessor
because of their peculiar opinion OF the
revenue laws of the State.
Judge Seawell appears to have given
this view of the matter his sanction, for
he says that the propositions on which the
plaintiffs relies are:
L. IndL lne assessor mas no power In max
Ing the assessment OF plaintiffs property in
the manner above mentioned, to include said
loans on stocks, bonds and personal security.
=. That said loans are not liable to taxation.
1t is Claimed by Plaintiffs counsel that the
case OF Weyse VS. Crawford, 80 Cal, 1876, is
decisive as to the first proposition. / do not
think that that case has any application 10
| the facts of this. The court merely held in
! that case that after the taxpayer had made
the statement mentioned i'll Political Code,
seclon 3oZ9, the Assessor has no power to
make an arbitrary assessment unless such tax
| payer refuses TO appear and be examined
under oath alter being served wit subpoena
In that case the Assessor, without giving the
notice which the Jaw required, made an ar bi-
/ trary assessment. The taxpayer in that ca Sc
was assessed for property which he did not
| own, and the TaX-COllector attem pied to COL
| lect from him taxes for which he was not
| legally liable. In this case there was no a BIZ
rary assessment. On The contrary, il was
automatically correct in every particular
Inc precise credits assessor were owned by
! the plant #, and hey were fully worth the
amount at which they were valued by the
! Assessor.
The Assessor is not bound to accept as true
the statement OF taxpayers either as to
| properly subject to assessment or TO its
! value II he can discover the existence of
tsXaDle property in any way, l know of no
primer pie OF law or statutory provision which
| prevents him from using the knowledge so
acquired In making assessments The tex
payer cannot, unless he has neglected TO make
a statement, be compelled to pay taxes on
property which he does not own, and if the
valuation made by the Assessor is too high he
mas an ample remedy by application for re-
duction 10 the Board of Equalization. If ne
mas not made a statement whea requested by
the Assessor, he Will not be relieved agaiI ST
an assessment even rs to properly which he
did not own. (0rena VS.. Sherman, 81 Cal,
IOn, Bode VS.: holJz, 90 Cal, 1867
The plaintiff here admits that there was no
error committed by the Assessor as TO property
owned by the plaintiff or as to its value
Upon this state of the law ana facts
Judge SeAwell holds that the Civ and
County Is IN the right and that the
paintlff corporation is wrong in its con-
tentlon. Touching the second plopos-
! tion his Honor refers to the construction
that ought TO be placed on s. ctlon OF
| article XIII of The Constitution and con.
cludes that it is evident that this section
was never intended 10 apply 10 pledges
OF personal properly. Judgment is there
lore gwen Tor the defendant, and the
bank Will never get its money back unless
It's attorneys can convince the Supreme
Court that Judge Seawell was wrong.
1hls Is signal victory for the Assessors
throughout the State, as it disposes of a
big obstacle that has hitherto stood in
their way IN The shnpe of the So called
Weyse decision, decision on which
banks and other large holders of personal
property and chattels of various kinds re-
lied for relief in the matter OF taxation
Mr.. Borden's point was that the Weyse
case had no application 10 a case in wh ich
the prupertv-owner appeared before The
Assessor teven though not subpenaed) ]
ana acknowledged that the prop .rty in
controversy belonged to him on tax-day,
though he failed to return it in his state