The San Francisco call., 1905-03-16


both houses of the Legislature without
awakening serious opposition and that
is now in the hands of Governor Par
dee for final action has met with at
tack In this instance the bill that
! meets with criticism was fathered by
Senator Hahn of Los Angeles and con-
fers upon taxpayers the unrestricted
right to contest in the courts not only
the legality but the equity of assess
ments that may be levied upon their
property by properly authorized off,
cials. Assessor Washington Dodge
says the bill is undoubtedly the most
vicious piece of legislation passed by
this legislature and should not be
finally enacted into law. The bill in
question follows:
An act to amend the Political Code of Cali
fornia by adding six new sections thereto. to
be numbered and known as sections 1858. 1854
| 1855. 1856. 1857 and 36ss.
The people of the State of California, rep
resented in the Senate and Assembly. do en-
act as follows:
Section The Political Code of the State
of California is hereby amended by adding six
new sections thereto, to be numbered sections
36s3. 1854. 36s5. 1856. 3eS7, 36ss, and to read
as follows:
sessment book claiming TO be aggrieved by any
assessment of property therein may present TO
ting forth that the assessment Is Illegal. spec-
flying the grounds of the alleged illegality; but
II erroneous by reason OF over valuation stating
equal in thst the assessment has been made at
! a higher proportional valuation than the as
sessment OF other property on the same book,
! by the officers. specifying the instances
in which such inequality exists, and the extent
thereof. and stating that he is OF will be in
jured thereby Such petition must show that
application has been made in due time to the
proper officers to correct such assessment TWO
I eoa1 or0a
who are affected in the same manner by the
alleged illegality, error or inequality, may
unite In the same petition.
JUDGE TO HEAR CASE.
Sec 36s4-Such petition Unjust be presented
to Judge of the Superior Court in the county
In which the assessment complained OF was
made, within sixty days after the assessment
book shall have been filed by the Assessor with
the Board of Equalization Upon the presen-
tation of such petition the Judge or court must
allow writ OF certiorari TO the officer or
assessment. and shall prescribe therein the
time in which return thereto must be made
and served upon the relators therein. which
shall not be less than ten days, and may be
extended by the court or Judge thereof. Such
| writ shall be returnable to the Superior Court
| of the county in which the assessment COM
| planned of was made. The allowance OF the
writ shall not stay the proceedings of the as
SCISSORS or other persons 10 whom II Is directed
| or to whom the assessment is delivered to be
acted according to law.
Sec. 36S5-The officers making the return OF
such writ shall not be required to return the
original assessment book other original
papers acted upon by them. but 1t shall be
sufficient to return certified or copies OF
such book papers, or OF such portions
thereof may be called for by such writ. The
return must concisely set forth such other
| facts may be pertinent and material to show
! the value of the property assessed on the book
! the assessing officers, and the return must be
| verified.
| OF any such writ that the assessment COM
planned of is illegal or erroneous or unequal
for any OF the reasons alleged IN the petition
the court may order such assessment II Illegal,
to be stricken from the books, or II erroneous
or unequal 1t may order q reassessment OF the
property of the petitioner or the correcting Of
| his assessment upon the book in whole or in
part, in such manner as shall be in accord
ance with law. or as shall make it conform
to the valuation of the assessments OF other
property upon the same book and secure equal
ity of assessment. If upon the hearing It
necessary for the proper disposition of the
matter 1t may take evidence or may appoint
referee to take such evidence 1t may
direct and report the same to the court with his
findings of fact and conclusions Of law, which
shall constitute a part OF the proceedings upon
which the determination OF the court shall be
made new assessment or correction of the
assessment made by order Of the court shall
have the same force and effect as If It had
been so made by the proper officers within
the time prescribed by law for making such
assessment. referee appointed by the court
person shall be appointed to whom all the par
ties object. No persons shall be appointed
as an attorney and counselor in the Supreme
Court of this State. Such referee will be paid
a fee of $40 per day
Sec 36ST-Costs shall not be allowed against
the officers whose proceedings may be reviewed
under any such writ unless 1t shall appear to
the court that they acted with gross negli-
gence or in bad faith or with malice in making
the assessment complained Of II the writ
shall be quashed or the prayer Of the peti.
the petitioner, exceeding the cost of dis
bursements taxable in an action upon the trial
,f 0f
Sec 36SS+An appeal may be taken by either
party from the order Judgment Of determina-
tion under this article as from an order. and
1t shall be heard and determined in like man
ner as appeals from the Superior Court from
orders. All the issues In appeals In any pro-
ceedings under sections 1888. 1854 1885. 1886.
s6s7 and 36ss of the Political Code shall have
preference over all other civil actions and pro-
ceedings in all courts.
DODGE'o VIEWS.
Discussing this bill yesterday, Asses
sor Dodge said
Senate bill No. 665, passed during the last
DAYS of the recent session of the Legislature,
is undoubtedly the most vicious piece Of legis-
iation passed by this Legislature The effect
of this bill would be to give to any OF
the twelve Superior Court Judges in this city
the power to cancel reduce any assessment
made by me any properly authorized Of
| hciai. The bill ignores the fact that the State
tenn for the equalization Of assessments by
a county and State Board OF Equalization,
and construed their powers Our Supreme
Court has uniformly held that the courts
| had no authority. under the constitution. to
| review values holding that the Assessor was
| tht. sole Judge of values; his judgment being
| subject to review by the Board of EQualiza-
ton only. In a decision rendered by the
| Supreme Court in the of the San Jose
| Gas Company VS.. January. the court said: 'If
| the Assessor errs in his Judgment in determin-
application to the Board of Equalization, and
! the courts will not revise the judgment OF