Walker Lake bulletin. (Hawthorne, Nev.) 1883-1926, 1884-07-09
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS.


office as Attorney General of Nevada,
Hon. NJ. A. Murphy, now Judge of
this district, incorporated in his re-
port, his views on the question of Con
sti,utional revision or amendment.
HIS well known diligence and ability
in looking after the legal affairs of the
State entitle his opinions to great
weight.
Some extracts are given below,
which answer, in advance, the argu.
ments, now being put forward, in
favor of Constitutional Convention.
The attention of everybody is called to
this matter, as it is of great impor.
lance, and 1t would be a cause for
serious regret If the Republican party
should commit itself to q call for a
Constitutional Convention. when no
such thing is necessary.
| consider our present Constitution
about as near perfect as an instrument
Of that kind can well be. Its different
provisions have been selected from the
Constitutions of other States, after
they had been experimental upon and
found to answer the purpose for which
they were intended. 1t was framed
by as able body of men as ever lived
in Nevada, the majority of whom
were old and experienced lawyers,
who were selected by the people on
account OF their ability and integrity,
and they were not controlled by any
personal or corrupt motives, but met
Tor the purpose of framing an instr,i-
Ment Of which the people might feel
proud, and they in after years might
say: II uds member Of that Cosstitu.
jional Convention" 1t is the funda.
mental law under which we have
laborcd and prospered for eighteen
years. True, we have added amend
ments, but the Constitution of the
United States was not framed at one.
nor two sessions, but when the emer.
gency would arise the parties to whom
were delegated the power to offer
amendments did SO, and the people, if
they thought that the eXigency Of the
ease required such amendments as
we're proposed, they, by their voice,
adopted them.
Most every article and section of
our Constitution has at different times
been subject to review by the Court of
last resort of this State, and they have
not been found wanting.
What portion of our present Constr
10 defective or does not meet the re.
. quirements of the people and business
OF this State, that cannot be made to
meet the wants of the people by
amendments | know of none. Some
of the advocates of Constitutional
Convention say that it is to amend
Section OF Article X to secure equal
and uniform taxation. | do not think
that article can be improved upon,
and IL we do not have an equal, uni.
form and just valuation of all property
within this State. it is the fault of the
revenue officers, and not of the Consti.
tuition.
Concerning the claim that the pres.
emit Constitution permits unfair taxa.
tion Of mining property, the following
Is sufficiently convincing to the con.
trary:
The provision in relation to the
assessment of the proceeds of the
mines | consider to be masterpiece of
work, and it is the only way you can
assess property of that character, You
cannot assess Il mining claim as real
estate, because no man can determine
the value thereof; it may be worth
millions, and it may not be worth one
dollar, except for the improvements
placed thereon. You cannot assess
che capital stock and have uniform
rule OF taxation; If you should, you
will assess the stock of the companies
Who are paying assessments to develop
the mines the Same as the stock of the
companies that are declaring divi.
dends each and every month. II the
law should be so amended as to assess
the capital stock of mining com.
pany at its market value, let us sec
how that would work. The law being
80 amended, the Assessor of Storey
County goes to the office of one of the
companies on the first day of July,
1888. The stock is selling in the San
Francisco Board for 800 per share.
He enters tho stock of the company at
these figures. On the second day of
July that stock may not be selling for
more than FIVE dollars, or IL may be
selling for five hundred. Now, how
are We gong to act? If The stock is
selling for five dollars, it would be
unjust to make the holder thereof pay
on one hundred dollars, and if it is
selling for five hundred dollars. it
would be unequal taxation to allow