The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-01-04
ADVICE TO COUNTY OFFICERS
FOOLISH TO BRING SUITS FOR
COMMISSIONS.
Sacramento Chamber of Commerce
Seeking to Have Annulled Con-
tracts Designed Simply to
Enrich Attorneys.
Special Dispatch to The Call.

SACRAMENTO, Jan. 3.-The Cham
Der of Commerce of Sacramento is
making a determined effort to have an
nulled in the forty-two counties of the
State interested the contracts entered
into with DevIin & Devlin of Sacra-
mento and Rodgers, Paterson & Slack
of San Francisco for the collection Of
back commissions which it is asserted
by the attorneys are due the counties
from the State for the collection of
State taxes for a number of years past
The chamber has appointed commit
tee which to-day went before the Board
of Supervisors and made an argument
for the annument of the contract en-
tered into with DeYlin 81 Devlin. The
argument followed the line OF that
which has been made from time to time
in the editorial columns of The Call,
presenting the fact that the counties
would in the end have to bear the bur
den, by increased taxation, of the eX-
pense which the State will seemingly
bear in paying the judgments aggre-
eating 81, SOC, 900 which the attorneys
hope to secure against the State Con-
trOller.
The Board of Supervisors took no
definite action upon the request OF the
Chamber of Commerce for the resclnd-
ing of the contract, one member main
tanning that it would be impractlcaple
for one county to go outalone, lnasmuch
as 1t would only lose in the event that
the other counties obtained Judgment
against the State. The Chamber OF
Commerce has pledged itself to support
the Controller in the defense OF ms
suits The chamber has received the
Following letter from the Controller,
copies of which will be sent to all other
mercantile and semi-public bodies IN
the State for action similar to that
taken here: 80,
Controllers Department, state OF C ,ad6
fornia, Sacramento, December ", 1878
J. O. Coleman, Esq, Secretary or the
Chamber of Commerce-Dear Sir; IN
reply to your favor of yesterday, ask
claims presented by the various coun-
ties against the State for back commits
sions, or fees, for collecting the state
portion of taxes, should not be PAID, l
will state that there IS not much to add
to what has already been published IN
Prior to May, 1893. it was costing the
State between $3.50 900 and $SOO,OOO an
nuallv to meet this expenditure, and
was serving no good purpose. The
money was collected from the counties
in the way of taxes and then returned
to the counties to pay the expense OF
collection. The money did not go to
the county officers, but into the salary
fund of the county treasury, and II
have this money. it We're better to, col
lect it directly by the counties them
selves. In my report OF December 10,
1892 1 called attention to this matter
in the following language:
1.-THE necessity for repeal of all the
laws granting commissions for the as
sessment and collection of State taxes
has been pointed out repeatedly by for
mer Controllers. There is not now q
county in the State in which the offices
of Auditor, Treasurer. Tax Collector
commissions received by these officers,
with the exception of the Assessors 6
per cent commission on the collection
of personal property taxes, are turned
to the salary fund. The present sys-
TEN is absurd-it is, in effect, trans
ferring money from one pocket to an
other, and losing portion in the trans
fer.
During the early days of the State gov
eminent. when county. officials were al
lowed the fees received for the perform
ance of official duties in lieu Of a stated
salary it was just and right that the State
should allow commissions for services
rendered in connection with its revenue:
but that time has passed, and such sys-
tenn is no longer necessary. Every per-
son of ordinary intelligence can readily
levy and collection of from $500 900 to $780,
600 additional taxes in order that the State
may return this amount to the various
counties in the form of commissions
In February. 1898. the Legislature fol-
lowing out my suggestion. passed the act
abolishing these commissions, and 1t is
the validity of this law which is now at
tackled by the attorneys rocking to collect
these claims. The claims already present
ed aggregate over $500 900. and If the
courts decide tnat they must be paid the
money will have to come from the coun-
ties in the shape of an additional tax.
From the best information I can secure
the attorneys will receive about $500 900
for collecting the claims. all of which will
come out of the pockets Of the people
without a single resulting benefit. The
proposition is an utter absuroIUy on its
face and while I do not blame the attor-
this is their iivelihoo6. 1 am inclined to
the belief that no Board of Supervisors
would have entered into such a contract
had they known what was back Of It,
Very truly, E. p. COLGAN,
Controller.