Arizona republican., 1906-01-14
THf LATER ARGUMENT
 IN MINE TAX CASES
It is Expected that an Opinion Will
 be Handed Down This Week.

Supplemental argument in the m-ne taxing cases occupied four hours oi yesterdays session of the supre ne court after which an adjournment was taken until Monday morning. It is thought that an- opinion in these cat;eq will be handed down some time this week or at least before the final ad- 5ournment of this session.
 The arguments of yesterday were by Attorney General Clark for rae terri tory and by District Attorney Ellin- wood of Yavapai county. District At torney Rawlins of Graham county for the boards Of supervisors involved and by Col. Herring for The Copper Queen Consolidated Mining company in the application for the writ of certiora Fl and also for the boards of supervisors tn the territory's application for man datOry writs.
 It was intended by the court that the arguments should be only to -cer- tain points suggested by the court but they took a much wider range and eventually covered the whole field
 The court on Thursday morning sub mitted the following questions to the attorneys:
 1st Is the power and authority fo add "patented mines" as a classifics.- ton, derived solely from ragraEh 3S77 of the revised statutes?
 End. Does the provision in said paragraph, "but the territorial board of equalization is authorized to diminish or add to the above list" give author ity for adding a b-classification of real property, or personal property. CT both?
 3d. Has the territorial board of nff i.To any power to further subdivide or classify any Of the classes or lists therein specified by the legislature. or is such power to add thereto confined to new classes of property not speci- fled therein?
 %th. Is there 2 provision in the sta ute for the assessment of patented mines" as such; and if not by Nflla. means may the increased assessmen by the Territorial Board be given ef- feet by the boards of supervisors?
 5th- Has there been any assessment or valuation by the proper officers al any such class of property as apat- ented mines" as such; and f not. does the failure to make any such assess- ment or valuation operate to prevent the territorial board of equalization from increasing or diminishing the
  class?
 6th. Has the omission to provide in the duplicate assessment roll a column for a territorial tax any effect upon the relief sought by the writ or manda- mus herein?
 Eth. Do paragraphs 3S49 and 3S61 have any bearing upon the interpre- tatiOn of paragraph 3S77?
 The part of paragraph 3ST7 referred to in these inquiries is ss follows: But the territorial board is authori5- to diminish or add to the above list. and to require such different or furth - CT matters to be returned as it may deem advisable; and if the said board Of supervisors or clerk shall fail ro forward to the territorial auditor the said abstract the territorial board of equalization must obtain the ah-- stract or so much thereof as is neces- sary from other and reliable source='
 The other two paragraphs mentIoH ed in the inquiries 3,S4S and S.S6f prescribe, the former, the manner iE which the property owner shall list his property to the assessor and the lar- ter, the manner in which the assessor shall enter such property on the as- scssment roll.