The copper era., 1905-08-24
ne increase ordered by the board:

Santa Cruz ..-.-.-.--- 300 3SO,I30 UO Pinal. l...........-..----.-.---- 66.lUO UO Yuma .--.-....-......-.--.-. oUO 2Olz UO Cocouino .................... $500 00 Maricopa. ...-.... ........... 1000 co
 Total .......... .......-..... Sl1637, ,566 5S
 In addition to the above all mining improvements were raised one hun dred per cent.
 The injustice of the above to the mine owners of Graham county l. not apparent on its face, but it is there just the same. The miners of Graham county have been making better returns than those of any other county in the territory, and that is apparently the reason why they have been held up and shook down for all there was in sight.
 To the casual reader it would ap- pear that Cochise county, with it's raise of fifteen hundred per cent. was treated most unfairly, but or course it all depends on the previous returns. The mines of Cochise county were returned in three classes. In that county non-produc- ing patented mines were returned at S5 per acre, or Sl00 per claim: pro ducing claims at $25 per acre, or $3O0 per claim, and dividend-paying mines at S37.50 per acre, or S750 per claim. | nOn-producerS was 5000, but many were returned for more, while those of the dividend class were returned at from Sl0,000 to as high as 1000. 1 A fifteen hundred per cent. raise on mines of the $l00 class in COcHlse county, would mean d tax on 5I600, while on the same class of property ! in this county. with d raise ot four l hundred per cent, 1t would mean d tax on S5000. A fifteen hundred per cent. raise on the highest class of mines in Cochise county would be l Sl2, 600, while in Graham county raise of four hundred per cent. on the same class of property would amount to from $50000 to $23O, eco. | Is this equalization? Is it just to the miners of Graham county?
 ! And so it continues through the en- 1 tire list. In Yavapai county the minimum valuation was S130, while | in Graham county it was Sl0OO. l Yavapai was increased one hundred per cent. and Graham four hundred ] per cent. In Yavapai county the minimum valuation on mining prop erty Is fixed by the board at $500 and in Graham county at 5000. 1 In Santa Cruz county the minimum valuation for mines was $500, which ClS ' or $3OOO per claim, while as shown above the same class of mines in Graham county are to be taxed on $5OO0.
 There is not single coun- .tv in the territory in which the
 mines are taxed as high as in Ora ham county.
 The table as prepared by the ter ritorial board put the total raise for Graham county mines at S2. .69 .66O. 10
 while a statement of the returns Of
 mines as recently given by the
 county clerk gives the returns for
 the present year at Sl. .228, ,2S2. 2.66. If the county clerk of Graham county is correct in his statement, and no
 doubt he is, an increase of four hur-
 dred per cent. would bring the total for the patented mines of Graham county to more than $6,090, GOO in
 stead of &, 697 ,660.l0 as shown in the
 table of raises as prepared by the board of equalization.
 In this connection it would be well to remember that Graham county
 has but 234 patented mines, while COchise county has 63l, almost three times as many as Graham county Taking the table as prepared by the territorial board as correct it will be I y .
 three times the number of patented
 claims, will be, taxed on only $67l. .l2S in excess of Graham county. If
 Graham county was producing more copper than COchise there might be
 an excuse for this. but the facts are just the reverse. COChise county not only has nearly three times as many
 patented mines as Graham county, but she is also prOducting at least
 twice as much copper.
 This Is the work of board which is supposed to equalize taxation throuphout the territory The duty
 of this board, and in fact it's only duty, is to see that property of the same class is equally and fairy taxed
 throughout the territory.
 The board is composed of intelli- gent business men. who had the tax rolls of the various counties before them. and yet they have made d blunder in their equalization for which there is absolutely no excuse, and which, if carried out k bound to work d great hardship on many ot the mining companies of this county
 Aside from the unequal and unfair valuation placed on the mines of the territory, why should the improve ments of the mining companies have been raised one hundred per cent.
 The ERA is not posted as to the valuations placed upon mining prop ertv throughout the territory in gen eral. but in Graham county the Te turns made by the companies on their plants and Improvements. have been as fair as the returns made by ] the citizens of the county in general. | This same board of equalization ! seems to have overlooked the fact