Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1907-03-06

v'0OAv00DAIp IsAh0N0 O, 1JU(s is measured as pounds or ounces of metal actually produced. Second. Again. object to it he. cause it exempts from taxation tho machinery and other Improvements o1 producing mines used in mining. If you will read section you will see that that section does not nuthoi. izc in itself the assessment of such improvements. nave we my other provision in Council bill No. 45 author. | izing the assessment of machinery on producing mines'
 But l understand that it is proposed to amend Council bill No i5 in this ! respect.
 Third. ] further object to the bill because II provides no penalty in the event the mine owner makes no stgtc. mcnt as required by section of the | act.
 By section il is provided tha, upon iallur" of the owner to make the sworn statement required in section .. The assessor shall estimate the gross product and value of the mine at one. firth of that. But in no event shall he | exceed that value: hc acts at his peril without the information that the law provides that he shall have. The mine owner cannot be harmed if he failed to file the statement; hc may be i'm. nenscly benefited.
 
 We are told that the bill is pa,. termed after that of Colorado and some other states. ] do not approve of the Colorado law, but even that is very different from Council bill No. Jj and 1t may bc of interest to you. as well as very significant to point out some of the differences.
 The Colorado law requires that the owner of the producing mine shall state, among other things:
 The number of tons of ore extracted.
 The gross value of such ores. The cost of extracting the ores, which cost shall exclude certain sal. aries of officers.
 The cost of transportation of ore to place of reduction or sale.
 The cost of treatment. reduction or sale. and
 The net proceeds in dollars and cents after dcducting inc above cx. penscs
 Need | comment on inc radical tiff. fercnccs between that feature of ,hn Colorado law and that of Council bin No. ij.
 Again. in Colorado. if inc mine own CTS ncglcrts to make the statement. it IS made the duty of the assessor io assess the mine at its full valuc-in Council bill No. n at one.fifth of it's gross proceeds. Why these provisions are left out of Council bill No. I5 when we are told that Council hill No. Ij is patterned after the Colorado law is not for me to surnisc.
 li IS my firm conviction that the proposed law would be ineffective for the taxation of the property of any mining company that might undertake systematically to evadc the payment of its taxes
 But, most important of all. since your attention has bcen invited to the customs of other states. | have to say that Michigan is the oldest state of all in point of experience in dealing with the question of mine taxation. And Michigan, after trying sundry cxperi. mcnts, among them .asipg value upon proceeds. has returned to the nd val orcm system--thc principle upon which Arizona statutes have been based for more than a quarter of n century. And tho mining property in Michigan for the last tax year was l T million of dollars. (At this point the messages gives figures and facts comparing Arizona and Mich igan, which puts n very favorable ! light on the law of the statc).
 The hin transmitted herewith amends many paragraphs of the pres cnt revenue law. and for your con venisncc 1 submit brief suggestions as amendments, taking up each para graph in it's order.
 (Mnny of the recommendation con | taincd in the message will not he found herewith. but an effor, was made to incorporate those of greatest importance and bearing on mines di' rectly)
 Paragraph 3s32 is amended by changing the date when the tax levy shall be fixed by the county board of supervisors from the third Monday in August of each year to the first Mon day in September. The object of this change is to require the board of supervisors to base their levy for all purposes upon the valuations as finally capitalized by the Territorial hoard of equalization.
 Paragraph 3s33 is amended so that the tax lien shall attach on the first day of January instead of on the first Monday in February.
 Paragraph 3sl7 is amended by cons mencing the assessing period on the first day of January and ending the same on the frs, Monday in May.
 Paragraph 3sis is amended by mak- inp ii the duty of every person owning