Arizona weekly citizen., 1886-06-19

], the legal construction of the law by th ' courts.
 [ These anthoritIes fully sustain tb ! position We take with reference to th l property named, and clearly show ths 2 sueh property IS taxable under the reve hue law of the territory, and are nO within the exemption required, nor ar, they included ID the expression "minin. , claims"
 It remains now to determine what Ii
 meant by the expression "mininl
 claims ID the revenue law, and that VI
 proceed to do. There is large class oI
 cases where the occupants of mining
 property do not claim any ownership
 whatever ID the lands ip their possession
 lhey simply enter upon the public
 iahds and make improvements thereon.
 90 Tar as the government IS concerned
 such persons may be and often are nak
 ei Ire pHssers. The improvements, how
 ever, that they put upon the land, while
 tolerated m its possession by the govern
 tntnt, are looked upon Bs valuable prop
 erty interests, giving to their possessors
 not only home, but oftentimes large
 and lucrative income. The possession
 and interest of the possessOrs of such h
 holding, wherever that state of things
 exists, have always been treated as l properly; have been sold upon execu-
 tion and judgments, and transferred by
 mortgage and otherwise.
 In speaking of this class of property
 the Supreme Court of California says:
 The whole course of Legislation and | judicial decisions m this state since its | organization. has recognized a qualified
 ownership of the mines in private indi-
 vldusls. Contracts affecting mining claims have been constantly enforced;
 remedies have been afforded to those
 whose possession has been disturbed or
 whose claims have been trespassed upon | by others, and the right of the locator
 to sell, hypothecate or Tn any manner dispose Of his property in a mining | claim has been upheld as Eell by legis-
 l6tive enactment Hs by judicial decis- ions"
 The history of legislation in this ter
 FitOry snd the most casual examination of such legislation show most clearly
 that from the first distinction has been
 ma ie between the mlnes and interests
 in mines. Nearly every miniug law speaks of mines and mining interests in such way as to clearly indicate that there wgs distinction between the two.
 well understood and recognized; mines being regarded Bs covering the two spe- cles Of proderty first referred to by us. and mining interests the latter.
 Now this property IS also subject to taxation. It has been continually taxed elsewhere, as the California cases cited show. No one will contend that 1t is not within the power of the legislature to subject such property 10 tAxatiOn. Ihc IOWer to do SO IS undoubted and complete. Under the Howell code such grOp' iy and interests were taxed, but It i- said that the revenue law winch took the place of the Howell code ex- empts such property from taxation, and indeed the position IS boldly asserted that mines absolutely owned and to which potent has been issued are also exempt under the present law. There F no foundation for such assertion in either Instance. We have already shown | tao fgllRcy of such position with refer ence to mines actually owned. Not stronger claim can be made in favor Of l the exemption of mining claims as we construe that expression to mean. The revenue Jaw does not exempt, nor does # undertake to exempt mining claims from taxation. It simply provides that the term Hand" as used m the law shall | not be SO construed ss to include nm ing claims, either lode or placer. Ir | this regard the present law changes the I rule of taxation ID force under the How en code, and left such property subject | to taxation under the head of "personRl | property" as works and improvements | upon public lands.
 The Howell Code as 1t stood. left such | property subject to taxation both as real | estate and personal property. To avoid embarrassment and n possible double taxation the present law prohibited the taxation Of such property as real estate.
 Upon the authorities cited that before property shall be declared free from taxation the exemption there from in the revenue law must exist in clear and unambiguous terms We might leave this question, for such exemption does not here exist.
 Ehe same question, however. has been elsewhere and judicial deci- siOns similar to this one we pronounce are not wanting.
 Thus the Supreme Court of Illinois. says: "The general government still retains the title to large proportion ot the land in many of our pOpulous and wealthy counties. on which are perms- nent improvements of great intrinsic value, and whence the necessity of pass ing laws adapted to property thus pc culisrly situated. To allow 8 class of persons to hold and enjoy large fortunes beyond the reach of their creditors was too shocking to a sense of justice to al it to pass unnotioed by the Legislature. and consequently 1t has, by repeated IA T rs.,r NkaI | proper subjects of transfer and owner ship. They are made sufficient cUnsid- rratlon for contracts and promises. Lands thus owned and occupied are treated as proper subjects for actions of trespass, fOrcible entry aud detainer, foTcible deisIner and eiectment; and. indeed, they are throughout treated As of the individuals possessing them, and as such they are subject tc the control and disposition of the law, go far Bs the occupant Is concerned, as much as if he owned the fee-except. however, that no disposition can be m Bde of them so as tO effect in any way ! a title which may be derived from the United States. In cases of eieotment for these claims it is only necessary for the plaintiff to deduce a regular title sAhAa' AAAt AAt0h OlNuhnhh AlIANoN HIS NatAtAA | has been sbandoned,) who IS considered ss the fountain of his title. which will prevail, unless opposed by a government title, when it vanishes. Upon such titles depend the security Of extensive and some of the largest mills and machinery in the state. Such is the situation of many populous villages and fiourIshlng towns"
 People vs. Shesrer, 30 Cal. 656.
 These observations apply with cogency aud force to the condition of affairs in ;his territory.
 See also. Threadgill vs. Goodloe, F How. 36. In People vs. Shearer, supra he court says:
 These possessions, then. are recog- nized as q species of property subsisting lu the hands of the citizen. IL IS not the land itself. nor the title to the land. nor Is 1t the identical estate held by the United States. It IS not the pre-emp- tion right, but is the possession and use of the land subsisting ID the citizen. Why should 1t not contrib ute its proper share according to the value of the interest whatever It may be, of the taxes necessary to sustain the
 n T II