San Antonio daily light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1886-1907, 1897-05-02
SHORT STOPS.
What The People Are Saying.


The special meeting of the city
council to consider the question of col
lecting taxes, resulted in resolution
authorizing Alderman Hicks to draw
up an ordinance requiring the collec-
tor to make levies upon the personal
property Of delinquents, and indemni-
flying the collector against honest mis-
takes,
This Is altogether an unnecessary
proceeding, the law gise the collector
power, and the requirements of an or
dinance, repeating the law would not
be of any extra force.
The collector can seize personal prop
erty for taxes, but he must be sure he
is right in doing so.
Alderman Hicks suggests that the
newspapers should publish 1t that the
laws were adequate for the collection
of taxes. Alderman Hicks also relates
a conversation with a wealthy tax
payer who being asked, if his horse
and buggy were levied on, what he
would do, replied that he would hustle
around and pay his taxes.
The alderman would have the
newspapers convey the idea to the
public that the law authorized the COL
lectOr to step into a mans stable and
seize his buggy or wagon, or horse, or
knock at the front door and as the
good woman opens the door to seize
upon the wedding ring upon her hand;
or her diamond earrings; or to lift
the piano out of the parlor; the sewing
machine, the bed, the stove, the dishes,
in fact the very pants the old man may
have hung upon nail. Now Mr..
Hicks knows better than this, and he
knows that the newspapers are not
published to create false ideas among
the people.
The state exempts from taxation, the
horse and buggy, exempts households
property to the extent of $780, and out
side of this the household goods would
only be liable for the amount of taxes
due on such goods.
1t is fortunate this is so, otherwise
we would have the gallant Max Sutor
charging into the private premises of
our citizens, beset by bull dogs, and
liable to have his body riddled with
buck shot.
We are told that the city has won all
its tax suits; how many has it won,
and if every tax payer refuse to pay
until forced to do so by law suits, when
would the city get its money.
The city does not want to go into
the junk shop business and the city is
largely stopped from doing so. The
levy upon goods and merchandise of a
merchant would be safe experiment,
provided everything was done right.
But levying upon the personal prop
erty of the citizen is not only a very
risky, but a very tyrannical proceed
ing and likely to arouse a severe OBJ
position.
The ordinance is to be drawn so as
to save the collector from making
honest mistakes" The collector and
his bondsmen are only responsible for
his proper rendition of the monies he
collects. If he should enter upon the
premises of a citizen and make a false
levy, his bondsmen would not be re-
sponsible, but he would be liable per-
sonally on the charge of trespass.
No. let things be done right-the law
is ample enough, let it be carried out,
but don't attempt to terrorize the poor
and defenseless.
The council did not consider the
proposition of offering rebate. A plan
that was tried during Mayor French's
administration and worked well.