Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1863-11-21
Taxing Mining Claims.

s EDITOR NEWS :-Inasmuch as the Bute-
tn haa conceded that it comedies with me,
and with every one who is in favor Of taxing
the products of productive mines, l would
not have troubled your columns more, had
not the Bulletin asked Of me the question:
"Why advocate any additionalpegislatioR on
the subject, when all such property is taxed
by existing Legislative enactments?"
To this question will answer-1 do not
advocate any law for this Territory, but do
urge that the constitution Of our new State
should be so framed that no taxation upon
the market value Of mining claims will be
permitted. But at the same time, am com.
pelled to admit that our new State will re-
uuire revenue from the mines; and pro-
pose to obtain suchrevenue by taxing the pro-
ducts of productive mines only. This is the
doctrine have advocated and still urge.
In my first communication, admitted that
the State had power to collect arevenue from
the mines, but urged that such revenue must
be derived by taxation Of the proceeds Of a
mine, and not its market value. In answer,
the Bulletin overlooked my main proposition,
and proceeded to join issue with me upon
the Tl2AL VI Tic Cbubc W LdA llluCo1 aho WIZ
singular inconsistency, declares itself in IA
vor Of taxing the products of productive
mines, and at the same time denies the pow
er Of the State to collect a revenue from the
mines. These two propositions must be both
admitted or both rejected. Both must be
true or both false. A power to tax the pro.
ducts of mine pre-supposes power to col
lect a revenue from that mine.
believe there is difference between tax.
ing a mine, and taxing the interest of the oc-
cupant of a mine. If the mine itself is taxed
then the tax can be enforced against the
mine; if the interest of the occupant Of a
mine is taxed, then the tax must be enforced
against the occupant only. A tax enforced
against the mine itself would diyest the gov
eminent of its title to the mine, which the
State Of California has no power to do; outa
tax enforced against the'title Of an occupant
of mine would effect only the interest OF
such occupant, leaving the title OF the gov
ernment intact.
IF this view is correct, then the Supreme
Court of California were not meddling with
that which was not their business, and were
not deciding questions, which, as the BuLe-
tin declares, were "clearly not within the linn
It's Of their power to adjudicate," when it de-
cided that the interest of the occupant OF a
mining claim is property, and under the Con-
stieution Of the State of California, it is in the
power of the Legislature to tax such prop
erty.
Therefore, while admit that a mine can
not be taxed so as to divest from the govern
ment any title to that mine, ! claim that no
citizen in this Territory has an interest in
mine which ia not liable to taxation. But
deny that it is correct policy for our new State
to tax indiscriminately all mining interests
according to their market value but better
policyis to tax only the products Of produc-
tive mines.
Now, deem further discussion between
the Bulletin and myself to be entirely useless,
for we both agree upon the main proposition,
which is to tax the products of productive
mines. 1t behooves our Constitutional Con-
vention to consider this subject well, as it
is very likely it will form strong element to
influence the adoption or rejection Of the
Constitution, when completed. G. H. c.