The San Francisco call., 1897-09-09
The Reductions in Thirty-Six
Counties Will Aggregate
$eO,OOO,OOO.
STATE TAX MAY REACH 81
CENTS.
Action on San Francisco
Final.

was no preliminary skirmishing when the
State Board of Equalization met this fore
noon. After the minutes for several meet
inGs had been read and approved by a
roll call vote TO make the approval GER
tain, the board was ready for action.
Beamer threw the first bomb He
moved that San Francisco's assessment be
raised 20 per cent. Chairman Morehouse
seconded the motion. The roll was called.
Morehouse and Beamer voted aye. Ar
mold, Chesebrougn and Controller Colgan
voted no.
There was silence for minute, and then
Beamer moved to raise San Francisco IS
per cent. The motion was lost the MEM
bers voting as they did Oh the first propo-
siton.
AS Beamer had nothing else to offer at
that time Arnold moved that the assess
ment of Los Angeles be reduced 10 per
cent. The motion was seconded by Chese-
brough. The motion prevailed, Colgan,
Arnold and Chesebrough voting in the
affirmative and Morehouse and Beamer
in the negative. When the vote was an
nounced Mr.. BeameI said:
II move that Alameda be reduced 11
per cent, if this is the way we are going
to equalize."
The motion did not receive second,
but Beamer met with better success in
getting some one TO stand in with him
when he made another motion to increase
San Francisco 10 per cent. More ouse
promptly responded as a second II this
motion, but the proposition was voted
down by Chesebrough, Colgan and Ar
mold.
Arnold moved that Riverside, Orange,
Kern, Ventura and San Benito be each re-
duced 10 per cent. The vote was taken on
each coun cy separately. Mcrehouse voted
in the negative because he thought these
counties ought to be reduced Is per cent
if San Francisco was not 10 be raised.
Arnoid's efforts to secure 10 per cent re-
due ion were successful and later on he
obtained reconsideration and got 10 per
cent decrease.
Butte County was reduced Is per cent on
motion of Beamer, seconded by More
house. Arnold and Chese ebrough voting no.
Colusa was reduced 15 per cent, Arnold
and Chesebrough voting TO. Glenn, Hum
boldt Marin and Merced were reduced 10
per cent on motion of Beamer. CHEESE
b:ough voted in favor OF the Merced re-
duction as large increase in the valua-
tion of this county had been recorded.
Arnold interposed to say to Beamer:
"lf you are going down the line on this
Is per cent decrease will put some of the
southern counties in the list"
Napa. Shasta, Sonoma. Satter, Tehama
Yola, Yuba and Mendocino were each re-
duced Is per cent on the votes OF More
a.
brough voted no on each call.
Alameda was reduced 10 per cent and
the same reduction was made in the assess
ment OF Santa Clara County, Chesebrough
alone voting in the negative.
San Luis Obispo, Kings and Santa
Barbara were reduced Is per cent. Arnold
got the Is per cent reduction TO apply to
his southern counties that had been
previously red Iced 10 per cent. Monterey,
Santa Cruz, Fresno, MADEIRA San Diego,
Mono. Inyo, Stanisaus, Lake. Marposa,
Sacramento, Tulare, San Mateo and
Amador, were reduced, some obtaining 10
and others Is per cent OF decrease.
Controller Colgan became appreheDsiv
that the reductions were going too far and
being applied TO counties which preferred
that the assessments should stand as
returned. The point was raised that some
of the counties had mucn difficulty in
finding taxable property sufficient 10 sus-
tain the legitimate expenses of county
government, and that reduction mig [
work hardship rather than benefit. The
Controller moved to rescind all the work
of the board. Arnold seconded this
motion and then withdrew the second
Chesebrough then seconded the motion OF
the Controller, and the roll was called
with this result:
Ayes--ColgaD. Chesebroueh, Arnold
Noes-Morehouse, Beamer.
The board now found itself in the same
position tina 1t occupied when the session
OF tie day opened. A conference discl osed
81 determination TO proceed again rather
than adjourn.
Morehouse reopened the engagement by
motion to increase San Francisco % per
cent. Beamer gave the motion a second
Colgan, Chesebrough and Arnold voted
no, and defeated the motion.
The following counties were then re-
duced 10 per cent: Los Angeles, Alameda,
San Joaquin, Santa Clara, Monterey, San
Bernardno, Fresno, Santa Cruz, San
Diego, Tulare and San Mateo.
The following counties were reduced Is
per cent: Riverside. Orange, Ventura,
San Benito, Kern, G enn, Humb ,ldi, So
noma, Yolo. Napa, Solano Marin, Mendo-
cino, Shasta, Tehama, Yuba, Butte CO.
lusa, Suffer, MERGED, MADEIRA, Kings, San
Luis Ob;spo, Santa Barbara and Stanis-
laus.
proposition to reduce Sacramento 10
per cent encountered the opposition of
Arnold. He aid not believe that the
assessment was high. In his judgment
the rule that applied 10 San francisco
should apply to Sacramento. Beamer
made several efforts 10 get reduction for
Sacramento, suggesting that if 10 per cent
was not agreeable N should be granted
Morehouse remarkeu that his mind con-
N II 1sf NJ No in
creasing San Francisco. Arnold reminded
his feilow-mem bers that Sacramento re-
ce we'd many benefits from the disburse-
ment of Staie money and that the county
was not highly assessed. Beamer could
not get second 10 a motion to reduce Sac
remenIo 5 per cent.
The subject was discussed whether the