Graham guardian., 1906-04-20

the right of possession to an un
patented mining claim.
| The Supreme Court of the Ter
ritory of Arizona, in the case o
| Waller VS. Hughes, IL Pac, ll2,
we'll considered case, used thi
language; "No property is ex
empt from taxation unless express
ly and unequivocally exempted BY
the Legislature or other sovereign
power. By the laws of Arizona
mining claims on governmen
property are not land, and arr
subject to taxation as persona
property"
In a more recent case, decided
by the Supreme Court of Arizona
| March 20, 1904, on the question o.
taxing unpatented mining claims
the court uses this language
"Thls court has held that both
patented and unpatented mining
claims are subject to taxation; that
patented claims are. subject tu
taxation as real estate, ana un.
patented mining claims as personal
property; and that both classes
should be assessed upon the basis
of their cash value" This is q
very interesting decision and was
very fully and carefully consider.
ed by the Supreme Court of this
territory. Outside of few pro-
feSsional tax dodgers, this case has
been considered as having fully
and finally put at rest the question
of taxing unpatenttd mining
claims in Arizona. 1t is the case
of the County of Cochisc VS. Cor
per Queen Consolidated Mining
Co., 81 Pac 746,
The Supreme Court of the Unit
ed States, in one Of the cases cited
herein, in commenting upon the
right to tax unpatented mining
claims, expressed great surprise at
anyone attempting to cyadc the
payment of taxes on property
which was claimed to be under the
protection Of the government.
Scarcely II term fcourt has been
held in Globe for the last fifteen
years bat what there has been sew
eral cases of conflicting rights be-
tween parties for uupatented min.
ing claims. Parties who own such
property 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 to whom the right
to the possession Of such property
should be given. 1t has been but
two years ago since the famous
strike occurred at Morenci, and the
property interests, among which
were several unpatented mining
claims, were threatened with de-
and the owners of the
same appealed to the governor of
Arizona for protection and asked
that the territorial militia be sent
there TO protect said properly. At
great expense, the request was
granted, and hundreds of citizens
went there TO assist IN protecting
the mine owners who were operat-
ing upon unpatented mining claims
Does it not appear from the deci
sions of the courts, the nature of
the property, and the protection
under which the same rests, that
lnpatented mining CLAIMS should
be taxed, as the statutes of Arizona
provide?
1t is asserted by the editor Of
,he Belt that "the cry raised
against the mining industry not
paying its just proportion of taxes
s the mouthing of the demagoge."
Webster defines a demagoge TO be
"A leader of the mob, or OF the
abble; one who attempts to con-
rol the multitude by specious or
leceitful acts" | am willing to
uhmit 10 the reasonable and SEN
ible man, after he reads the article
n the Belt and acquaints himself
With the rulings of the courts on
he subject of taxing mining claims,
the Belt has not hcwed very
lose to the line of demagogism.