The silver messenger. (Challis, Idaho) 1890-1912, 1900-12-25

first legislature of the territory
exempted mining claims" i. e.
claims asserted under the mining
laws of the United States, to GER
tain lands of the government,
supposed to contain mineral de-
posts. These claims might, by
compliance with the provisions
of the United States laws, ripen
into q title, at the option of the
locator or claimant; but, so long
as the title remained in the gov
eminent, they were exempt from
taxation by the territory or state.
When, however, the title passed
from the government by the is
sue of a patent, they were no
longer within the purview of the
provisions of the federal law.
They were no longer the proper
ty of the United States; but be
came incorporated into the gen
eral property of the citizen or
citizens of the territory or state,
and we're part of ''all property
Nv subject to taxation" under the
provisions of Sec. 1400 r. S., I'M
less exempted by the express
provisions of some statute of the
state.
The claim, which was an in
choate right had by the acts of
the claimant, confirmed by grant
of the government, ripened into
complete title. The title of the
holder of mining property under
a patent from the United States
government is, in no way, differ
ent from the title by patent to
any other lands granted by the
United States. Twas mine,
tits thine" By virtue of the
paramount law, while it was the
property of the United States, it
was exempt from taxation by the
local law. When it passed from
the United States to the citizen,
it became subject to the same
general law as that of all other
property of the citizen.
Section 1400 r. S.. ,which'is the
existing law in this state pro-
vides that "All property in
this territory (state) not exempt
under the laws of the United
States, except as enumerated in
the next section, is subject to
taxation as in this title provided;
but nothing in this title shall be
construed to require or permit
double taxation" The seventh
sub division of Section 1401 is as
follows: latter defining exemp-
tions) "Seventh-Mining claims,
, but machinery, property and i'm
provements upon or appurtcnan1
to mining claims shall not be sc
exempt"
Is not the intention of the leg
islature clearly apparent in the
| language of this section ? AL
, property which the Legislature
was authorized to tax, they
would tax, in obedience to the
+ recognized principle that taxa
ton should so far as practicable
be equal. The mining industry
was the dominant industry o.
the territory. and yet, it is con
tended that it was the intention
of the Legislature to exempt il
from taxation. IL this is a cor.
rect theory of taxation, it would
be entirely proper for our nexl
J legislature to exempt sheep from
taxation, because the sheep in
| dustry has become dominant il
| this state. We are not in accord
) with the position taken by coun
} sci for respondent that, in con
STRUNG statutes pari materia, we
must follow the word and not the
; purpose of the law. All statutes
pertaining to revenue are to bt
construed most strictly in favol
of the object of the statute, tina
is, in favor of the purpose of the
l statute. Statutes of exemption
are to be strictly construed
i against exemption and in favor
, of revenue. Statutes providing
z for liens are to be construed il
= favor of the purpose of the stat
/ Iutes, that is, to secure to TIN
4 lien holder, or claimant, the RICH
: intended by the statute to be Sc
D cured to him. If it was the in
tention of the legislature to ex
I empt from taxetion the most val
j liable property in the state, sucf
: intention should have been clear
: ly and unequivocally expresse,
4 in the statute, and not being S,
r expressed, we cannot think tina
the courts would be justified il
Y reaching so inequitable con
!, clusion by construction.
f The constitution of Nevad
a art. Ky prescribes the taxation
Q of ''all property, real, personal
: and pOSSeSSOrV. executing mine,