, 1889-09-26

NO FIGURES FIXED.
The Legislature to Levy a Tonnage
Royalty on Coal.
Details of a Stubborn Fight on an
Important Subject.
Bill of Rights Endorsed and Pro-
positions Adopted.
Matters of Revenue and Public
Debt Settled.
TAXING COAL.

Inc cOuteot ou tue proposition W levy
a specific tonnage on royalty was resumed
with great earnestness yesterday morn
ing. Palmer and Hopkins of Sweet
water had arrived to work against the
proposition.
Mr.. Harvey offered a substitute in eff
feet that real, personal and possessory
property, except mines, be equitably
taxed on a valuation basis; that mines
be taxed on their output alone. 1t was
voted down.
In presenting a series of amendments
Mr.. Morgan of Laramie made able argu-
ment in favor of taxing the output of coal
mines. To adopt a constitution practi-
cally exempting the operators would be an
outrage upon the people who were CON
PEELED to bear the burden of supporting
the government. The Morgan amend
ment wa lost.
Mr.. Brown submitted several new sec
tons providing that in addition to taxa
ton of surface Improvements OF mines,
there should be levied a fair royalty on the
output. In the case of coal the levy
not to exceed one cent a ton for state pur-
poses and one half a cent for the county
purposes.
Mr.. Wagner objected on the score that
the county was entitled to the major por-
ton Of the revenue from property within
its borders. Teschemacher endorsed this
principle
Palmer said that as a delegate from
Sweetwater it was unnecessary for him to
announce that he was opposed to the
amendment If this provision was incor-
porated into the constitution the people
of the coal counties would rot mo- on
submission day. They would not be dis
eliminated against or held up to sup
port the overnmen OF the new state al
most without the assistance of the coun-
ties producing no coal. He knew not how
this scheme originated. but it was mani
testify absurd and entirely at variance
with the principles of political economy.
Mr.. Jeffrey was in favor of taxing the
output of mines, but urged that making
figures be left to the legislature.
Judge Brown had a champion for his
ideas in Mr.. Baxter, who prefaced his re-
marks with the statement that the coal in
terest did not bear its share of taxation.
Palmer interrupted to say that this was
not the fault of the law but of the admin
istration. Baxter. responded that the
fact existed at any rate, and went on to
say that an equitable tax could only be
levied by exacting royalty on the product.
II the property was taxed as a whole
there would be an injustice to owners, as
the value of the mine depended on the
output. He did not however, favor fix
ing the exact rate in the constitution, but
felt that the manner of taxation should
be clearly indicated to the legislature. He
would vote for Judge Browns amend
ment.
Mr.. Jeffrey declared for an amendment
which would levy an ad valorum tax, a
percentage on the value OF the output of
oil mines.
Mr.. Potter would not vote for a pro.
vision which fixed a maximum or mini
mum rate of taxation.
A desideratum OF the people, Mr..
Hopkins assumed was 10 attract the invest
ment of capital. With the tonnage tax
the cost of mining coal in Wyoming
would be double the cost in Colorado.
Mr.. Hopkins, himself an operator, gave
some figures. The original cost OF a ton
of coal to the mine owner was $l.50
the market price $l.75, giving the
producer a profit of 25 cents. The profit
and MIR. Hopkins suggested that he be
taxed.
Judge Brown said that as the state was
to pay the inspectors, etc., it should have
the larger portion of the royalty realized.
In PENN ylvania the counties received not
a cent. He would accept an amendment
contemplating covering the county tax
into the school fund. Russell inquired if
the accumulation of the state tax would
not induce the creation of special officers
in order that the revenue might be dis
bursed. Judge Brown thought not.
Teschemacher objected to the discrim-
ination against Sweetwater. Carbon and
Uinita counties. Baxter cited that FIRE.
mont and johnson would soon produce
oil, that mines would early be developed
in other counties.
Smith of Carbon attempted to make a
Republican argument on q Democratic
hypothesis, but failed. However he
made a good Democratic elycidation.
The other countless" said Fox of AL
bauy, assist Carbon. Sweetwater and
Uinta by paying big prices for coal"
Mr.. Hoyt was set in his opposition to
discouraeing the development of the ter
ritory by placing an onerous a on an in
dustry.
Clark made another rafting argument
fayoring submission to the legislature.