Graham guardian., 1905-08-04

amount taken off the assessment OF
their Iroperties, The result was
that Of the three members of the
board, one, Geo. A. Olney, stood by
Assessor Birdno while the other
two Baylor Shannon and B. +. Bill
Kingsley, stood for the reduction,
and McGinty-like "down vent
that 50, 100000.
Messrs Shannon and Billingsley
thus saved the copper companies
the tax upon s2,OOO,OO0 or the neat
little sum of about $4,000. And
in doing this the two supervisors
mentioned acted promptly. Had
they taken time to deliberate, it is
not at all probable that their action
would have been any different, for
it is certainty that those compan-
les make it a point to see that at
each election at least two of the
members Of the board of super
visors are the kind that will "wig-
wag" at the command of their
"Simon."
But, were they rightl If they
were they deserve no censure. Let
us look atthe facts from the figures:
For the fiscal year ending in the
summer of 1908, Mr., CoIquhouu of
the Arizona Copper company of
Clifton, made a report to his direc.
tory and that report found its way
into print, in which he showed the
net earnings of that company tor
that one year to be largely over
100000.
The question then is: What is
the value of properties that will
produce for its owners Sl.000,000
per year over and above all ex.
peuses?
That is what was probably the
information upon which the asses.
or based his valuation of the prop
critics of these companies, and
should have been, the guide of the
board in passing upon the matter.
They being men in active busi-
ness, ought TO have looked at the
matter as one of business and not
of sentiment
Let us look at the figures: If
properties will produce
net profit Of q million dollars in
one year what is its real, and what
ought to be. in fairness, its taxable
value?
AT six per cent profit of Sl,-
100000 would represent a capital
Of SIG, 666,666.
But the property in question
consists of mines, and works for
operating them, and it would not
he fair to say that that sum is their
cash value. But it would be fair
10 put their cash value at half that
sum or SS,O0O,000. Then it is the
custom to place the taxable value
of property Except. Of course, that
of the poor devil who only owns
mall amount which is usually put |
much higher at one half its cash |
value. And this being true, As.
SCISSOR Birdno should hav assessed |
Ihe property of the Arizona Cop
Der company at fully S4,000,000,
md that of the other companies ac-
,ordingly, and the board of super
Visors should have upheld his
work. But they did not. The
Simon sand "wig-wag"
md two members "wig-wagged."
But let it be said to the credit of
Hon. Geo. A. Olney that he did
rot. Graham county's tax payers
Ihould remember this. And they
Ihould remember Assessor Birdno,
md stand by him in his efforts to
make fair and just assessment of
he property of the county"
Then comes the Arizona Gazette
With the following pertinent
emarks on the methods of taxa
ion:
"The opposition in certain of
he counties or Arizona which has
Ieveloped to the well-meaning and
audable efforts of tax assessors to
'eturn an equitable assessment is
o be regretted. The efforts Of the
SCISSORS in question are purely
n the interest of the people of the
erritory as a whole and can in no
ense be construed as being mimi
,al to the best interests of fArizona.