The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-01-16
THE HECLA'S TAXABLES.
Objection Made by the Company to Paving
Taxes in Both Indiana and Montana.

Through repeated complaints, unofficially made,
that there were large values of personally in
this county escaping taxation, leaving real estate
to bear the burden, the county auditor and COM
missioners yesterday were considering the taxa
bic condition of certain corporations which here
tofore have not been listed up to the line of their
possessions. 1t is under Section 6291 Revised
Statutes, that the officers are acting. This pro-
vides that capital stock and franchises Of cor
poration shall be listed and taxed in the county,
township, city town where the principal Office is
located Reference is further made to Item 5 of
the schedule for taxation, which relates to .'all
shares of corporations formed outside of the
State, and al shares of corporations formed in
and conducting business inside the State. "
With this as basis, the auditor
looked into the taxable valuation of
the Hecla Mining Company, claiming that it
ought to pay tax on the amount of its capital
stock. No tax has ever been collected on this
amount, and if the company is required to pay,
$500 will be brought into the treasury for tax
es for 1881 to 1885 inclusive.
Yesterday the company filed a protest, in
which it was stated that it organized under the
laws OF Indiana, had two Offices one in this city,
and the other, the principal Office in Glendale,
Montana Territory At the Ia tier place are To-
Gated the reduction works, the company operat-
ing on capital of ST. 500 000 with all stock
paid up-the capital invested in the business,
real estate and buildings at Glendale.
The company says the shares of stock have no
marketable value, their actual value depends
upon the operation of the property and there
fore, it cannot be safely estimated. Every dol
lars worth of the company's property has been
returned for taxation in Montana Territory each
year, afrom 1881 to 1885, inclusive The tax has
been paid there, including 81 per 81 900 on the
net earnings for each year. It claims that all
the business is transacted at Glendale. The
gross earnings are reported monthly to the treas
turn sends drafts to the general manager at
Glendale for the payment of the monthly pay
roll. The balance in the hands of the treasurer
on the lst of each month is subject to the pay
ment of the pay roll and all expenses to that
date.
The company sets out that on the 1st of April,
when assessments were made in this State for the
years 81, 82 and '83. there was surplus in the
hands of the treasurer, but on that date in '84
the treasurer had a surplus of $53. 2l6.91, and
on the lst of April the year following surplus
of $l65 sos TO- 1t had no other property in Indi-
ana from April l. 1881, up to date, and thinks
payment of taxes has already been made in Mon
tana at the rate of So per 81, 900 on the surplus,
that this property is not legally equitably tax
able again on the same property. The company
states lts willingness to pay taxes in Indiana on
the amount of the money it had in this State on
the 1st of April, 1884 and 1885. A decision
against the company will bring to the duplicate
great deal of property Of the same character.