Graham guardian., 1906-04-20
RATES or LEGAL ADVERTISING.
AS TO GapATENTEO MINES

The following letters is takor
from the Arizona Register, anent
the argument maze by the Silver
BeH that no unpateried mine;
should bo assessed,
Globe, Arz, April 9, 1906.
To The Editor of the Register,
In the last issue of the Silver
Belt, the editor Of that Journal ac.
cuscs the acting district attorney
of ella county of giving the board
of supervisors bsd advice when be
advised them that unpatentcd min
ing claims were subject 30 taxa.
ton. The author of that article
shows his lack of knowledge on
the subject and submits himself to
severe criticism, by giving an
opinion contrary to the advice on
question OF law which was fully
settled by the highest legal tribun-
al in the United States more than
thirty years ago It certainly re-
quires nerve on the part Of jour
nalist to give an opinion contrary
to the decisions Of tue supreme
court of the United States aud su-
preme court of Arizona. The ad.
vice given to the board Of super
visors by the acting district attor-
ney of Gila county was 10 accord,
ance with the decisions Of the
United States Supreme Court and
of the Supreme Court of Arizona,
on the subject Of taxing mining
claims, and was not obtained from
a maudhn gang Of tax-dodgers,
who are often found anxious to
abuse an officer who attempts to
perform an official duty.
Par. 1885 of the Revised Statutes
of Arizona, 1901, in defining real
estate, expressly exempts mining
claims, and classes the same with
personal property Par, 1886 de-
clares that all taxable property
must be assessed, in these words:
"All taxable property must be as
sessed at its full cash value. The
term cash value whenever used
this title, shall mean the amount
at which the property would be
taken in payment of just debt
due from a solvent debtor" Par.
3847 make it the imperative duty
of all assessors to diligently in
quire and find all taxable property
real or personal, and assess the
same us required by Par, 1886.
No assessor, or body of asses
sors, has any authority to declare
that any particular kind of proper
ty will not be assessed, and if, as
said in the Belt, set Of assessors
got together and declared that
they would not assess mining
claims in the year 1906, they acted
without authority. 1t would be
just as legal for them to have de-
clared that they would not assess
horses or cattle, or any other
class of property, for the year
1906.
In the case Of Forbes VS. Gracey,
"a U. S., 3l3, the Supreme Court
OF the United States, in a tax case,
decided that mining claims were
the subject of bargain aud sale,
and constituted very largely the
wealth Of the Pacific coast states;
that the jame could be "sold, trans.
ferred, mortgaged and inherited,
without infringing upon the title of
the United States" Why may it
not also be made subject TO lien for
taxes, and the claim, such as it is,
recognized by statute, be sold to
enforce the lienY
In the case of Belk VS. Meagher,
1O4 U. s., 1856, the court uses this
language: "a mining claim, per.
fectcd 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 oppression Uf thu court Was