, 1889-09-25

not q single dollar mad been diverted into
the treasury of the commonwealth.
1t was fair to presume that coal mining
would be one of the principal interests of
the state as it is of the territory. Then it
should be fairly taxed and contributed to
the support of the state. This was the
ratio of revenue:
Live stock. 80
hallwaJs
Other property.
Coal
The territory received from coal mine
owners 81, $50 annually and paid to the
inspector alone IS, 2 O
Judge Brown now introduced a free
trade argument, saying that a cardinal
principle of all tariff arguments was that
the consumer must pay the freight"
but the owners must not be allowed to
escape entirely.
Rock Springs coal cost laid down at
Omaha S.. 10, where the market price was
800. At K%earney s4.75 and $3.50
Here in Cheyenne So % and Sc 100.
Mr.. Hay said that coal at the mine sold
for So (.
This did not cripple Judge Browns ar.
gument. He could discern no warrant for
a profit of rs cents on an investment of
sl.25. At Green River it cost to lay
down the coal $l.S3, where it sells for
81. so. At Butte the figures are "a 90
and $500. At Salt Lake, $40 and
Sc. so.
After this showing Judge Brown in
quired if there was any business in the
proposition to rob the new state of its
coal and pay no tribute. How can you
fix the value Of coal land? inquired the
speaker. He replied hat such ascertain
ment was impossible. On all its coal
lands-many thousands of acres-the
Union Pacific pays the merest trife for
taxes. The Burlington & Missouri is ac-
curing big tracts. They should contribute
to the revenue fund of the new state.
Exemption of the coal mines was rank
injustice to other interests. In the past
three years the territory had expended
many times the amount derived from the
coal mines for their care. Coal is a com
modify of merchandise and not entitled to
a place on the free list. The people can
ill-afford to tax other interests to increase
the profits OF coal mine owners. The
business pays a bigger profit than any
other in the territory and there is no rea
son why they should not assist in the sup
port OF the new state. The speaker was
not antagonistic to corporations, but
could not endorse a discrimination in their
favor.
MIR. Hay said the proposition to tax
was alluring, but he could see no cause
for a special levy. He was not prepared
to combat statistics. As to the condi-
ton of Colorado. The convention had
been told hat our neighbor had been i'm
poverished. His hearts desire was that
Wyoming might be stricken with a SINH
lar case OF pauperism. Tax the output of
mines and the development would be dis,
couraged. He had this from mining
men o fDenver. The profit of the Union
Paci6c's eoal business had no application
to the question. Their property was only
a drop in the bucket to the mines to be
operated in the new state. Perhaps the
railway company was in a position to ex-
tort and took advantage of 1t. He knew
of an instance in Converse county where
men had put $50, 600 into a mine but had
yet made no money. In case the tax was
levied the assessor would be given unlim-
tied power. Such a provision could be
found in no other state constitution. 1t
was special legislation of the worst sort.
To be sure the Pennsylvania statutes
make a tax. but every condition is vastly
| different from the existing state of affairs
in this territory.
In opening Clark Of Uinta dwelt
upon the importance of the question, cit
ing that it effected a large number of cit
liens supported by the chief industry. In
the first place it was a direot and special
tax, whereas in his opinion the only equs
table tax was an ad valorem tariff. He
was prepared to say that President
Browns figures were wrong. In many
towns coal was worth s1.75 per ton on
the cars, no more. More than this was
the result of freight charges and commits
sions. He stated positively that during the
past year the net profits on coal to the pro
Queer was not more than 25c a ton and al
- W#*M#&3:8|