Durango semi-weekly herald., 1904-11-03
MR.. HOPKINS REPLIES
TO IAN INQUIRER


reduction OF the valuation of the
American Smelling and Refining
company.
In 1902 the property OF said com
pany was less, as they had reduced
their stock Of ores so that they prac-
tically were nearly exhausted.
In answer to the claim that no pri-
vate persons valuation was reduced
in comparison. | will mention two
instances TO the contrary. More can
be furnished II necessary.
The records show that in 1901 the
Democrat Printing company, by its
manager. d. F. Day. field sworn
schedule valueing the Democrat at
$1,000 and taxes were paid on this
valuation. The following year the
Democrat failed to file schedule and
| aurned in the sworn valuation OF the
year previous. Last year the Demo-
crat Co. filed sworn schedule plac-
ing the value of the plant at $4,000
Nothing was said of the valuation OF
previous years. This last spring.
long after the taxes had become de-
| linquent Day asked for and was
granted rebate for 1902 in accord
ance with the value of 1903 This is
a matter of record in the commission
| ers proceedings
Thai reduction was far greater in
proportion than that OF the A. S. & X
Co.
Now as to valuation on the Neg
lected mine in 1902. The assessor
smoke In the attornay nf tho Naala,,
ed Mining company several times
asking him to see that the schedule
for the company was turned in to the
assessor. the attorney having seen to
1t the year before. The failure of the
company to turn in the schedule left
ii for the assessor TO make their
schedule
The law says in Sec. 81 Subdivision
f of the Revenue Act of 1902 as fol.
lows:
Sec. SID. All surface improve
ments and all machinery located upon
any mine or mining claim or claims
shall be separately valued for taxation
and shall be taxed at their FULL
CASH VALUE.
Sec. SIZE. If any person. corpora
ton or association engaged in mining
as mentioned In these sec.
tions. REFUSES or NEGLECT
TO make out and deliver to the assess.
or of the county where such mine or
mining claimis located the statement
herein required. such assessor shall
list the property and FROM ANY IN.
FORMATION OBTAINABLE shall as
sess the same at its FULL VALUE
Now, is the assessor to evade the
law. or shall he do as it directs? II
is the intention of the law to add Il
penalty for the failure to list all prop
erty as the law directs.
The assessor must needs put an ex.
cessive value on such property, as he
is to value the property at FULL
CASH VALUE and from any INFOR-
NATION OBTAINABLE
It was common knowledge in 1902
that the Neglected mine owners re-
fused 100000 that summer or spring
for their property. The value of the
ore taken out was approximately
$13O.00O for the preceding year The
mill and other improvements on the
mine cost about $4,000.
All this was to be taken into con
sideration. and the assessment was
placed at 100000 so as to force the
company to appear before the county
commissioners and give such informa-
ton as would permit or allow of
correct valuation. AT the meeting oil
the county commissioners the valua-
ton agreed upon was 27100 while
Inquirer" would have us belive they
paid taxes on $24O.OOO.
AS to the valuation of the Camp
Bird. wish to obtain the figures for
several years before making any com
parisons.
Further, does Inquirer" mean to
have us infer that when a company or
person has sold or used up part OF
their property that the valuation
should be kept at the same figures?
For so one would judge that Is what
he meant when he spoke of the A. S.
a. X. Co. reduction in valuation, which
he placed far above its true amount.
and did so without making due in
quiry as TO whether they had replaced
their stock. as 1t was disposed OF in
Inc course OF business. Apparently
Inquirer" would have us believe this.
or that he was misinformed.
Perhaps he wished to mislead. as he
ried TO do when he stated that -..e
Neglected was assessed al $240, 900.
when the books show that its assess
d valuation which that mining com
Dany was to pay taxes. is only s27 100
Besides he might ask D. f. Day
Shethcr he considered the assessment
II $1,000 against the Democrat Print
ng company as a iairer one or mol
rhan that Of 81. 1000 in 1901.
And the reduction on the property
Of these two was larger in proper
ton than that of the A. S. & X. Co.
| could go on and cite a number OF
instances where reductions were made
in greater proportion to that of the
A. S. & r. Co., notably two merchants
whose schedules were cut nearly In
Two and still both claimed excessive
values.
]. s. d. HOPKINS.