Arizona weekly citizen., 1886-06-19

| -SN -LS'NAAu ilt Tthl
 tate as said term Is defined ID this act.
 The eighteenth section declares thG
 The assessor shall prepare 8 tax list c
 assessment roll ID the books furnishe
 hun by the Board of Supervisors, |
 which books he shall set down the Tea
 estate snd personal property; and anon
 the things he IS to do be must writ
 down "sll Improvements on public land.
 describing as nearly as possible the lvca
 uon of such improvements"
 The foregoing are the only provision ot the revenue law that Is deemed nee
 essary to refer to III this controversy.
 The present revenue law to which tb,
 fOTgoing references are made taking th,
 place of Chapter s of Howell Code
 which 4 repeals. Section , of tba
 Code Compiled Laws, 1864. page 3l2 provided taat "Tls term real estate
 whenever used m this Act shall b,
 deemed and taken to mean and includ,
 aud It Is hereby declared to mean anC
 include, the ownership of. or claim to
 or possession ot, or right of possession
 to, any and all mining claims, either Tod,
 or placer, within the Territory; and the claim by, pr possession of, any person hrm, corporation, association or com
 parry, to any land or mining claims either lode or placer, shah be listed un. der the head of real estfte." The term "personal property" m the Howell Code IS declared to include the same articles
 hs the same term in Section i've of the
 present revenue law, and indeed all of
 Section five in the Howell Code except
 above quoted, Is the same as the similar section in the present law.
 Now, after this somewhat lengthy reference to the present and former laws of the Territory, We come to consider what Is meant by the expression. mining claim" in the existing law and She extent and purpose ot the exemption with reference thereto contained there n.
 Clearly the law as it stands now was not intended 10 and does not exempt from taxation mining property to which a patent has actually been issued Dy the Government of the United States. Such a construction as that would be Tn conflict with the very Act itself. which provides, We have seen, that "all proper ty Of every kind and nature whatever within this Territory shall be subject to taxation except" in the cases enume- rated.
 There is nothing in the exceptions Co justify the claim that mines to whIoh patents have been issued should not be subject 10 taxation. Such property l. clearly within tho definition of tke word Hands" and also real estate" in Chapter l O. the Compiled Laws, uhict declares these words. "shall be construed 70 include lands, tenemenis and regl estate and all rights thereto and Inter ests therein"
 In such case, the per5on to whom patent tissues, becomes the absolute owBsr of the property named iu 1t, and as tO such property the Government parts with all right and title therein. The grantee III such patent Is Gn owner of Hand" and "real estate just as much and ss fully as the owner of agricultural or other lands. That being SO, the Leg islatufe could never have intended that II should not bear its just proportion or IaZstion. Neither does she revenue law exempt from taxation, nor can it be con strued 50 to do, mining rights or claims E here the occupants or claimants have paid to the proper officer of the United States the purchRae money therefor, although the patent may not have been issued to them.
 By the payment of the money by him | in such case, and its acceptance by the i Government, the land is his; the Gov arnpent of the United States only hold | .ug tie lcGal title in trust for him. In such case, the property is private prop erty. To hold otherwIse wonld encuur- age owners and occupants to delay call ing for a patent for the very purpose Of 1 avoiding taxation.
 Such has been the construction given | To these laws in California.
 State of California vs. Moore, r., Cal | J6.
 State of California vs. HobGrt-SheGrer. l 30 Cal. 6Ij.
 The revenue laws of this territory do | not in terms exempt such property from | taxation. and as the interest acquired by | he purchase in such cases becomes a | part of hIs individual property, 1t l. Rs | much subject to the taxing power of the | erritOry as any other piece or article of | property within its limits and protected | y it's laws. No property within the | is exempt from the operation f these revenue laws unless put be- 'Ond them designedlv and unequivo- ally by the Legislature or other soyer sign power.
 A mere inference that certain property I 8 exempt from taxation wIli never do. | TOT will il be assumed unless the Ian ,uage used IS too clear to admit of loubt.
 Gilman vs. the city of Sheboygsn, ? | blocks, (U. s. K 5l0.
 Iowa Homestead Co. vs' Webster, 2l Iowa, 221.
 Jadge Cooley declares the rule as fol- ows:
 "The intention 70 exempt must in all | 'sses be expressed Tn clear and unsmtig- | lDus terms; taxation Is the rule, eXemp- | ion is the exception. All eXceptlous Ire Co be strictly construed; they en- ,rsce only what is within their terms Cooley on taxation, l46.
 In Providence Bank ys- Billings, 1 | Pete. 5ll, A leading case, Chief Justice Marshall says:
 That the taxing power is Of vital that 1t IS essential 10 the ex- stence of government, are truths which { cannot be necessary to re affirm As he whole community is interested m etaining it undiminished that commUn- ty has q right io insist thst its aban- Ionment ought no. to be presumed in sse ir which the deliberate pgrFOse ot he s'a ate to abandon 1t does not Gp- ,eBr.r
 In Railroad ys. Maryland. 10 How, 76, Chiet Justice Fancy said:
 "This court on several occasions has ield that the taxing power of B state 3 never presumed to be rehnquished Inloss the intention to reiInqulsh IS de Jared in clear and unGmbiguous terms
 In Railroad Co. vs. Dennis, ll6 |. 5. l.. 665. ID speaking of taxation and the urrender thereof, Justice Grey. who de- iyers the opinion of the court, says:
 "It has been said that neither the ight of taxation nor any other power t sovereignity will be held by this ourt to have been surrendered unless uch surrender is expressed m terms oo plain to be mistaken; that exemp- ion from taxation should never be ssumed unless the language used is oo clear to admit of doubt; that ,othing can be taken against the State " presumption or inference; the sur euier when claimed must be shown oy lear, ungmbiguous language. which will .duit of DO reasonable construction con istent with the reservation of the ,ower; if a doubt arise us to the intent fl the Legislature, that doubt must Oe