The record-union., 1899-01-27

mountain districts. For about five
months in the year the sheep which
have been pastured In the valley sec
tons are kept in the mountains, and
especially in the high attitudes. Now
on these sheep no taxes are paid in
these upper counties. Out of that sit
uation grew up the system of a license
tax upon the herds, and under the
provision OF the County Government
Act referred to Boards of Supervisors
have imposed such license taxes.
In some counties, notably Plumas,
the license tax has been run up as high
as 10 cents per head, including lambs.
The sheep are driven from the valley
section to the mountains shortly after
lambing, and hence the upper counties
secure a revenue from the taxation
growers considered onerous and unjust,
hence the provision, probably, which
we have quoted from Assembly Bill
1868, Section %. Subdivision %.
The limitation proposed, then, is a
maximum tax of cents, and provision
that unweaned lambs shall be exempt.
But this is rather a low figure. Five
cents, with exemption of unweaned
lambs, would be just, and not. too much
for California sheep. The owners have
paid taxes, of course, in the valleys
upon their property in these sheep
herds. If sheep is valued at, say 81,
in a county where the rate of taxation
is ~ cents, the owner pays 3 cents
taxes per head upon the property. Now,
if when this property is taken for four
or five months in the year into mount
ain counties, an additional tax of 10
cents a head is levied, it becomes a
hardship; one that is excessive, and
presents to the fair mind a case of
injustice. But the imposition of a tax
of cents as a license fee will make
a great difference to the California
owner, when considered with the ex-
emption of unweaned lambs. For, as
will be realized, the unweaned lamb
eats nothing that the mother has not
3
previously eaten.
But when we come to sheep owned
in another State, Nevada, for instance,
we have different case altogether.
Sheep driven from the State of Nevada
into California-and they are fully as
numerous as those in California-have
not been a source of revenue to Cali
fornia- Their owners have paid no tax
to this State upon the property, and
therefore such bands of sheep should
not enjoy the limitation and exemp-
ton sought to be established by the
proposed law. Such bands should be
taken out of the new category and
their license taxation be left to the SUI
pervisors of the several counties.
Unless clear distinction is made be-
tween California and Nevada or other
foreign sheep, and provision put into
the bill expressing it clearly, and ex-
GLIDING the Nevada and other foreign
sheep from the benefits of the new law,
discrimination will be made against
California sheep owners, those who
have paid property tax upon their
sheep into the revenues of this State.
Such owners clearly ought to be en-
titled to elemency in this matter, but
sheep pastured within this State upon
which no taxes have been paid to the
State are entitled to no benefits of the
proposed law. They are worthy only
of the measure of justice which ought
to run to all people.
1t will be considered, also. that the
Nevada sheep owner can conceal his
property represented by. his sheep herds.
escaping the Assessor by driving into
the mountains of California, where the
Nevada official cannot follow him. Thus
the Nevada wool grower is given undue
advantage, and the California grower
handicapped. This,
then, among other reasons, is a strong
one why the Nevada sheep men should
not enjoy a maximum rate, but that
as to such owners the County Boards
of Supervisors should be left to i'm
pose such license taxes as they may
deem proper.