Arizona silver belt. [volume] (Globe City, Pinal County, Ariz.) 1878-19??, 1886-07-03

teNing mining claims patented on 9th
erwise, was the question at issue
Since then, the Citizen in its lssue
Of June 18th, has published the com
plete text Of the courts decision, and
in view Of the great Importance Of the
subject Of taxing mining property, III
may be desicable, TO comment on the
same.
Two principal points were under
consideration BY that tribunal First,
whether patented MINES, and those
held with possessory rights under tho
FL. S. Mining Laws, are at all taxable
under the Territorial Laws, after the
former tax on net products, had been
repealed, and second, whether the
mode of assessing patented mines at
the uniform rate of $500 apiece, was
proper and lawful assessment under
the Territorial Laws.
AS to the first question, the oonrt
decides that persons to whom pat
ent issues, become the absolute own
ers of the property named in it, the
government parting with all right
therein; that the Legislature never
intended, that such property should
not bear its just share Of taxation, not
withstandrng the somewhat ambigu-
ous wording Of section 5, of the Reye-
nue. Laws Of the Territory, which de-
clares, that land assessed in that sec
ton "shali not include mining claims,
either lode or placer"
The court holds, that the exemption
of mining claims, patented, is not ad-
mlssible, because it was not distinctly
listed with other exempted property,
and because such exemption would be
in conflict with the act itself, which
provides, that "all property Of what
ever kind and nature" shall be taxed,
except as in the cases enumerated,
So far the decision is very clear, and
we think, reasonable,
As to non-patented mining claims,
the courts decision is not so clear, 1t
seems TO us. 1t admits, that such
property cannot be elassed as real es-
tate, but, as long as itenters into legal
transactions, sueh as transfer, mort
gage etc. and the laws protect such
acts, it is considered a subject OF taxa
ton, as property IN possession and OF
( valuable use to the citizen. And the
decision Of the court, referring to sew
eral California decisions, and those
given by courts in the older States,
CLASSES the mining claim, unpatented,
with personal property.
! 1t will hardly be doubted by the
majority of people, that certain tax
alton for valuable mining property is
reasonable and fair; but it is not this
abstract question, which offers so
many and potent objectionsj it is the
finding, after diligent search, what
would be a real cash value Of a min
ing claim.
The court, in deciding the second
question, i. e, whether the usual as
sessment of $500 for each patented
mining claim, is legal assessment,
says, that this is an arbitrary yalue,
not in conformity with the Territorial
Revenue Laws, which require the as
SCISSOR to use diligent inquiry and to
examine all property subject to taxa,
tion.
1t may be said here, that the courts
decision undertakes an impossible
thing, in directing an assessor 10 d.
what neither the court, nor anybody
else can accomplish, unless il is by
divine revelation.
1t is unqueshonably perfectly prac,
hcable to make 4 fair estimate Of the
value Of a house, piece OF land more
or less fertile; of cattle, and Of very
many other things All these have I
e present and direct approximate mar
: ket value; what they are, can be seen
, what profit they may bring can be es
, timated but as to a mine, which i
valuable one day and the next day i
! not worth having; with an its endles1
r and unfathomable complications ant
changes; with all the difficulties to b,
encountered in working it, and th,
different character Of product, profta
BILE at one time, and the reverse q
another. We ask, in the name o
: common sense, how it possibly coult
be expected, that an assessor should b,
} able to adiudge, justly and fairly, il
= the time allotted him, what this o
! that mine, patented on unpatented, i
! worth in cash value, at the time hD
I makes his assessment?
: In the face Of such absolutely i'm
) practicable undertakings, does it no
f; occur TO that highest Of our tribunals
that any assessment must be arbitra
ry, as a matter Of fact and viewed il
the light Of ordinary common sense
Would it not be equally absurd to ia,
one mine double az much as another
: just because the FIRST produces NOR,
ore than the second and il apparentl,