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

is made evident by the bill that ac. compaiied his special message to the Legislature on mine taxation.
 The salient features of the Gov ernor's message and bill follow:
 office of the Governor.
 Phoenix, Ariz.. March |. 1907. To the Council and House of Rep.
 rcscntatives:
 The question of taxation. especially as it applies to mining property, has gained even a greater importance than when l gave to you my biennial mes. sage, because. for at least one reason, a specific bill relating to that subject is pending before you for your consid- eratiOn.
 In compliance with the expressed desire of your committees having charge of this hill. l appeared before them at n meeting held by them on the 2lst instant at which were pres eut members of both houses of the legislative assembly. advocates of the bill known as Council Bill No. ij (thc only measure as now understand il under consideration by you) and some others. As it was apparent that the bill was designed to change radically our rcvcnuc system, it then seemed to mc--and it does now-that it was incumbent upon those who advocated its adoption to show either an evil to bc rcmcdicd or a good to be accom- plishcd by its provision, and that those provisions are adequate to either. But we were not favored with a discussion of the merits of the bill by those who proposed it. and the result of the meeting was simply n polemic discussion of the subject in general. l did state that l was op- posed to the bill. in principle and in detail. as that bill is now before you. | assume that it is your desire that l should, and as it is entirely within my province to do so, l now will. sug. gest to you certain remedial lcgisla. ton, applicable not only to the tax ation of mines, hut to every other class of property in the Territory de- signed to secure the object which cannot be deemed to be as other than the right one. of the even distribution of the burdens of taxation upon all alike and which is embodied in n bill for that purpose which l transmit with this message.
 Before. however. giving you some of my reasons, if not all of them, for recommending to you the passage of the bill L transmit herewith it ap- pears to me that 1 should state some of the reasons which influence my op- position to the bill pending before you.
 In doing this [ shall cndcavor to avoid. SD far as l can. n mere contro' versial spirit. In this as in all mat ters you and ] should be governed by an earnest desire to learn what is the right thing to do, and then do i.. Neither of us can do this if wc allow ourselves to bc influenced by fear ar favor, by prejudice or bias.
 There are certain principles apple able to the question of taxation that I must assume are indisputablc. l think one of them can be stated to bc that taxes should be borne by those most able to bear them and in the proportion of their ability to bear them. This principle, somewhat mod flied, however, is embodied in our revenue system; is the one recognized in every just system of taxation and never ignored, except inadvertently ar by corrupt or ill.advised Legislation or by dishonest property owners or m practice by inefficient or corrupt tax ing officers.
 That principle l may state to hc as modified and embodied in our law is that every owner of property in this territory should pay taxes in propor- ton to the value of his property. This will appear so just that it instantly appeals to us. And so just is if that nothing short of compelling reasons can justify our departure from it. To depart from the rule of the equality of the burden leads us at once to the rnle of inequality of the burden and who has the hardihood to advocate the rule that the burdens of taxation should be uneaually borncs
 Whether the taxation of Onefifth of n mine's product would yield this o' that sum of money is of purely see ondary consideration. The proper dis iribution of the burden is the only real question before us.
 Our statute provides that all prop erty shall be valued at its cash value and tells us what is meant by that expression. The application of this rule in practice would impose the rule of equality of taxation indisputably lt is equally true that a valuation of all property at one-half of it's value or at any uniform fraction of its value would insure uniformity. But to value some classes of property at it' cash value, others at 75 per cent of that value, still others at 50 per cent others at 20, others at 10 and others at ! per cent, destroys equality, i'm poses gross inequality and consequent injustice.
 If we are to depart from the statu tory rule of assessing at the casi value, then simple justice demands that tho departure and the degree oi departure should be the same as tt all c1a s~eu of uvnuevtv