Arizona weekly citizen., 1886-06-19
IMPORTANT DECISION
Dy ihe Supreme Court of Arizona Re- sardinG the Taxation Of Pat
 ented Mines.

] O! tue supreme Court Of the Iegritor ls one ot public importance and for tha rsason We print 1t. 1t lays al rest tb question ID this Territory. Are pateute, mining claims subject to taxation? an,
 with proper assessment by the count,
 assessor revenue will now accrue I.
 each county which has heretofore bee;
 withheld from the public treasury, an,
 many vaiuale private properties can nov
 have an opportunity of bearing a ins
 proportion of the public debt.
 In the Supreme Court of the Territ, r,
 of ArIZoBa.
 James $. Waller, Respondent. ys ! Thomas Hughes, as Treasurer of tb, | County of Pima and Ex-Officio Ts, Collector. Haynes & Stiles for respond
 ent, Hereford S LoTell for appellant.
 OPIsIoS-sHIRLDs c. J. This case Is submitted on the fae,.
 stated m the complaint.
 Two questions are before the court foI | decision. First, whether under the isws ! oi Ac.zonR mining claims for winch nat
 enis have been issued by the United States are taxable at all for any pur-
 pose: Second, should II be decided
 t-at such mining claims are taxable. | was there any legal or valid assessment O. taxes on the mining claims of the piaia.lh. the respondent hereIn, for the
 y,Ir ]. b. 1885.
 The portions of the complaint which raise shese questions are the follow l1E:
 lst. The General Craig mining c-ain ID the Aztec mining district, cov-
 ering 2O66 acres.
 2d. The Missouri mining claim, in
 the Aztec mining district, covering 2O.- | 66 acres.
 3d. The Whilden mining claim in she Tyndall mining district, covering 066 acres.
 That said mining claims were not and are not taxable for any purpose what | ever under the laws of the Territory of Arizoua.
 The complaint also properly alleges that the Getendeni was and Is the Treasurer and ex-ofiicio tax collector of the county of Pima; that for the year loS5 Hiram ;. Stevens was the county assessor Of the county of Pima and as such assessor unlawfully placed the three mining claims of the plaintiff upon h-s assessment list or roll and assessed the value ui each st the sum ot SjUO, anG further states the amount of taxes 20 be collected from each of such claims.
 Paragraph < of the complaint is as follows: That the said Stevens, as such assessor, at the tIme oi his said asfeFment assessed but ninety-four mIuIug claims for taxation in said county Cf Pima, and wholly failed, neglected nd refused to assess other mining c.aIms for taxation, although he well new that there were many other such inning claims ID said county equally subject to taxation with those of plain t'f and with the DInety-one other min ing claims SO assessed; ana that the said Stevens, further did not value plain- :iis sEid inning claim for taxation nor did he value any other of the ninety-one clIning claims returned by him as as Eessed st SjU0 each. but sad Stevens arbitrarily listed each and all of said ninety four mining claims at the sum oi sou, without reference or regard to the actual value of said inning claims, and without any knowledge of the real val ue thereof
 And that said Board of Equalization | wholly failed, neglected and refused to l plGce upon the said tax list or assess mcnt roll, or to certify for taxation any
 
 plaintiff and the ninety-one other SO ss- | sessed, although said Board were in- | formed officially and knew that there | were many other mining claims m said 1 county equally subject to taxation with | those Of the plaintiff and the saId ninety | one others,
 And plaintiff ayers sni charges that in hsting property for taxation and in | .e ha the sad assessor and the said Board of | equalization and the said Board. of Super | g1sors unlawfully listed and assessed all | mining claims ID said county of Pima, for which patent had been granted 0 | toe Un.tsd States and unlawfIlly and | and without right assumed | and attempted to so list and assess only | such patented mining claims and wholly | failed, neglected and refused to so list | or assess any other kind of mining claims m said county gltough there were others, both said assessor and said Board of Equalization knew that there were many hundreds of uupatented min ing claims in said county; aud plaintiff syers and charges that by the said un- lawful acts of sad assessor and said Board of EqualitzaIon the whole of the burden of taxation upon the class of property know as mining claims in said was and is uDiustly laid upon said patented mining claims, and said mining claims, and are left free from any taxation whatever"
 Other portions of the complaint Set out with precision the proceedings to levy the tax ID question but the fOrego- ing is deemed all that js necessary to guide for disposition of the questions raised. These questions are important and demand and have received serious 
 i right disposition of them depends upon tie correct construction Of Chap 8, of the Compiled Laws of Arl- zoua, which is the revenue law of the territory.
 As the law now stands the right to tax If Yt all must come from this chapter of the Compiled Laws.
 The Act providing for the taxation of the net proceeds of mines even if II ever had any validity so far as it may have been in conflict with Ihe revenue law Cthat act being prior m date to the revenue law) was repealed by the Legis- lgt1re of 1881.
 It is important therefore to have in flall q EitAE uuUGTSLhuuAuk ol kut pEO- visions of the revenue law as found ID the chapter of the Compiled Laws 10 which reference has beenmade.
 For convenience and that our views may be better understood, such proyis- ions of the revenue law as bear upon the questions raised are referred to by Us.
 Section provides that "all property of every kInd and nature whatsoever within this territory shall be subject 10 except such property as IS therein specially exempt" Then fol- lowed list of such exempt property of a pubhc nature and such as IS devoted to religious and educational purposes. But no property of a private character is exempt except a certain amount to widows and orphans. Then follows Section ,, as follows:
 SEC. ,. The term ''resl estate" when ever used m this act shall be deemed and taken to mean sud include, and 1t Is hereby declared to mean and include the ownership of. or claim to, or pos session of, or right of possession, to any land within the Territory; and the claim