The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1898-07-16

MITCHELL AS A LAWYER
oVERRIDES THE OPINION OF
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY.
Railroad Applications Are Disposed
Of With More Alacrity
Than for Years
Past.
Oakland Office San Francisco Call,

Oakland Office San Francisco Call,
90S Broadway, July Is.
E. Black Ryan, tax agent of the South
ern Pacific, made his customary annual
visit to the Board of Equalization this
afternoon. He did not bring so much ma
terial as usual nor did he file his ordinary
number of applications for reductions of
assessments. He practically conceded that
the assessment of railroad property as
adjusted last year by the County Board
IS about just, and asked that it be main
ralned for this year, although the Asses
SCR has added largely to those figures.
The company asked for a reduction on
the broad-gauge ferry depot from $125,000
to SIS 600. 1t was reduced to S115,000 On
the Improvements at the end of Long
wharf the assessment was $4,000. A re-
duction to $1,000 was asked, and the board
fixed the value at $4,000. The narrow-gauge
depot was assessed at $45, 600. Mr.. Ryan
stated that it was reduced last year, on
motion of Mr.. Roeth, to SIS, 900, and they
asked for the same figures this year. The
application was granted.
The water front property next came up,
and dispute followed as to the legality
of the descriptions Of the property and as
TO whether the Assessors descriptions
would legally carry a tax. District At
torney Shook decided that the descriptions
were defective and that no tax could be
levied on them. Mr.. Roeth wanted the
Supervisors to go and view the property,
so that they could form personal opinions.
None of the other members seemed to
consider this necessary, and Mr.. Roeth
could get no second TO his motion. Chair
man Mitchell said that as no member
would make q motion either to reduce CT
sustain the assessment 1t would go before
the committee of the whole. Roeth said
that he would not go into committee,
as he did not think II necessary, and the
In previous years the railroad assess
ments have occupied the time OF the poard
for several weeks, and ambitious poll
ticians have taken advantage OF the Incl
dent to make cheap political records. This
year there is an evident desire on the
part of the board to prevent such small
methods, and applications are being dealt
with very eXpeditOusly.
When the railroads tax agent asked
for reductions on the ferry boats assess
ments they were denied.
Applications for reductions on the Oak
land Railroad Company FRANCHISE, the
Berkeley local, the sidetracks at Niles
Irvington and Newark and the seventh
street local franchise were denied by the
vote Of Mitchell, ROeth and Wells. Church
and Talcott voted to reduce.
The SeVenth-Street local and the BerKe-
ley local are assessed for $4,000 and
$50 600. They have never been ON the coun-
~ assessment roll before, and Supervisor
Mitchell changed his vote this year, stat
ing that he did so to give the railroad
company chance to take the matter into
Mr.. Mitchell in explaining his change of
'.The Question before US is simply this:
Are the pieces of steam railroad known
as the Seventh-street local and the Berke-
lev branch TO be assessed by the State
Board of Equalization as is other road
way of the railroads in this county, or are
they TO be assessed by the County Assess
or? If they are parts of a railroad oper-
ared in more than one county in the State,
the constitution says they shall be as
sessed by the State Board of Equalization
and not by the County Assessor. The Dis
trCt Attorney las year advised and still
adises that the facts show these pieces of
railroad are parts of railroad operated
In more than one county in the State, and
hence have no place on the county assess
ment rolls, and that it is our duty to re-
move them.
Now, | followed this advice last year
because / believed that under the cOnsti-
tuition the State Board alone had the right
10 assess this property. l still think so.
There are great many people, however,
in this community who enormously think
that the Seventh-street local and the
Berkeley branch escaped assessment last
year because we voted to remove them
from the county assessment rolls. This Is
q mistake. The State Board of EqualiZa-
ton assessed them and the county re-
ceived It's share of the tax. 1t is a fact
however, that If these pieces of railroad
could be assessed by the County Assessor
we would get a larger revenue. The con-
stitutional provision has never been passed
upon by the courts and some people think
It might be decided that the County As
SCISSOR is the one to make the assessment
and that this property ought to be left on
the roll so that test might be made. I
am not a lawyer and l am willing that
the courts should pass upon this question
and settle 1t once for all. For that reason
only l vote to sustain the assessment.
still believe the County Assessor has no
right under the constitution to assess this
property. and I predict the courts will so
decide / wish to say further that in case
this matter is taken into the courts and
IS not decided by next year, and this prop
erty again appears upon the assessor ent
roll I shall vote to remove it."