Bisbee daily review., 1906-04-17
UNPATENTED MINES TAX
Lawyer of Gila County Writes Opinion for Publication
 On the Subject. .
UNPATENTED CLAIMS
 PERSONAL PROPERTY.


 county. has written the following opin ion, addressed to the Globe Register on the question of the legality of as sessing unpatented mining claims in Arizona. Judge Edwards writes as follows:
 GLOBE, Ariz., April 6. 1906.
 ITO the Editor of the Register.
 f1n the last issue of the Silver Belt the editor of that journal accuses tho acting district attorney of Gila county of giving the board of supervisors bad advice when he advised them that unpatented mining claims were sub ject to taxation.
 "'The advice given to the board Of supervisors by the acting district at torney of Gila county was in accord ance with the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and of the Su preme Court of Arizona. on the sub 1 ject of taxing mining claims, and was not obtained from a nlaudlin gang ot l tax-dodgers, who are often found anx 1 ious to abuse an officer who attempts 1 to perform an official duty.
 Paragraph 3S55 of the Revised Statutes of Arizona, 1901, in defining real estate, expressly cXempts mining claims. and classes the same with personal property. Paragraph 3S3G declares that all taxable property must be assessed. and is in these words: All taxable property must be assessed at it's full cash value. The term cash value" whenever used in this title, shall mean the amount at which the property would be taken in payment of a just deDt due from z. sol vent debtor.' Paragraph 3S4T rIakes it the imperative duty Of all assessors to diligently inquire and find all tax. able property, real or personal, and assess the same as required by para graph 3S36.
 ':No assessor, or body Of assessors. has any authority 10 declare that any particular kind of property will not be assessed, and if, as said in the Belt. a set Of assessors got together and declared that they would not assess mining claims, in the year 1906, they acted without authority. It would be just as legal for them to have de clared that they would not assess horses or cattle, or any other class Of 1 property, for the year 1906.
 'In the case of Forbes vs. GTacey
 94 ID. S., 313, the Supreme Court Of the United States, in a tax case, decid ed that mining claims were the sub. IJ Jett Ol DdE Sfllc, anu tOLlSAi ! tuted very largely the wealth of the i Pacific Coast States; that the same | could be sold, transferred, mortgag
 ed and inherited without infringing upon the title of the United States 1 Why may it rot also be made subject to a lien for taxes, and the claim, such as it is, recognized by statute, be sold to enforce the lien?
 'In the case of Belk vs. MeagheT.
 104 U. S., 735. the court uses this Ian | guage: "A mining claim, perfected under the law, is property in the | highest sense of that term, which may be bought, sold and conveyed, and will pass by descent This eXpres sior Of the court was in a case inyoly ' ing the question of the right of pos sion to an unpatented mining claim. The Supreme Court of the Terri | tory of Arizona, in the case of Waller vs. Hughes, Il Pac., 112, a well-con sidered case, used this language: i No property is exempt from taxation
 unless expressly and unequivocally
 exempted by the Legislature or other 1 sovereign power. By the laws of Ari
 zona, mining claims on government property are not land, and are sub | feet to taxation as personal property
 Tn more recent case, decided
 by the Supreme Court of Arizona.
 March 20, 1904, on the question oi 1 taxing unpatented mining claims, the court uces this language: This court | has held that both patented and un i patented mining claims are subject tc ! taxation; that patented claims are | subject to taxation: that patented claims are subject to taxation as real l estate, and unpatented mining claims as personal property, and that both classes should be assessed upon the basis of their cash value This is ( l very interesting decision. and was [ very fully and carefully considered by 4 the Supreme Court of this Territory Outside of few professional tax dodg CTS, this case has been considered a: ! having fully and finally put at rest the question of taxing unpatented mining
 claims in Arizona It is the case oi the County of Cochise vs. Copper Queen Consolidated Mining Co, S1 | Pac. TAG.
 "The Supreme Court of the United | Sta@os. in one of the cases cited here
 in, in commenting upon the right to tax unpatented mining claims. ex pressed great surprise at anyone at tempting to evade the payment oi taxes on property which was claimed
 to be under the protection of the gov EeTnment Scarcely a term of court
 has been held in Globe for the last fifteen years but what there has been several cases of conflicting rights be
 tween parties for unpatented mining
 claims. Parties who own such prop. erty come into our courts and ask protection from those who are seeking
 to infringe upon their rights. The
 time of the court and the officers thereof are required to determine these conflicting rights and ascertain
 10 whom the right to the possession of
 such property should be given. It
 has been but two years ago since the
 famous strike occurred at Nhorenci and the property interests, among
 which were several unpatented min
 ing claims, were threatened with de
 stTuction, and the owners of the same appealed to the Governor of Arizona for protection and asked that the Ter