Arizona republican., 1907-03-02

provements. Have we any other pro vision in Council Bill No. 45 authoriz- ing the assessment of machinery on producing mines2 Section expressly provides that machinery, etc. on non- producing mines shall be assessed as other property is assessed. You of
 course cannot look to that section for the assessment of improvements on producing mines The power to assess Improvements on producing mines is
 confessedly not in Council Bill No. 45.
 and we are referred to the general law
 for that. But this act proiessedly
 dealing with this subject would pre-
 clude us from referring to a general
 law unless we are referred to the other
 law by the bill itself. as We are in sec ton as to assessment of improve
 ments on unproductive mines. and
 again in section where we consider
 appeals from assessments, and in the same section : when we are referred to
 the general revenue law for the assess
 ment of surface ground used for other purposes than mining. But We are not
 even. left to this rule of construction. Section II distinctly says that no other
 tax on mines and mining claims shall De ltNleu OlHeTNlSC llldH as pIONluGu Dy
 Council Bill No. 45 itself.
 But I understand that it is proposed
 to amend Council Bill No. 45 in this re-
 spect.
 3rd. further object to the bill be-
 cause it provides no penalty in the event the mine owner makes no state
 ment as required by section of the act.
 By section it is provided that upon
 failure of the owner to make the sworn
 statement required in section ?. the
 assessor shall estimate the gross pro-
 duct and value the mine at one-fifth of
 that. But in no event shall h. exceed
 that value; he acts at his peril without
 the information that the law provides
 that ha shall have. The mine owner
 cannot oe harmed if he failed to file
 the statement: he may be immensely
 benefited. What he might do under
 those circumstances l shall not sur
 mise.
 It is true that the assessor may sub ipoena witnesses and examine them con- corning the gross products of ore mined
 but is that any efficient method?
 have gone more fully into a dis
 cussion of this bill than might appear necessary and even yet all that is Ob- jectionable is not stated. The mach
 inery for getting information-even
 suppose the principle of the bill could
 be approved-is in my opinion wholly
 inadequate.
 We are told that the bill is patterned
 after that of Colorado and some other states. I do not approve of the Colo
 radO law. but even that is very differ ent from Council Bill No 45. and il
 may be of interest to you. as well as
 very significant, to point cut 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 salaries 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 deducting the above expenses. Need comment on the radical differ ence between that feature of the Colo , rado law and that of Council Bill No 45?
 Again. the Colorado law provides that the assessor shall determine the gross ; proceeds (not of bullion. but if sold then of sales) and shall also determine the net proceeds by deducting the items of cost mentioned in the state D ment required as have above noted D l,..1 h,n Ina. fourth of the gross proceeds. But if the net proceeds shall exceed one fourth of the gross proceeds, then the mine shall be valued at the net pro- ceeds.
 Council Bill No. 45 provides that pro- ducing mines shall be assessed at neither more nor less than One-fifth of its gross proceeds. no matter how . profitable or unprofitable the mine D may be. The Colorado law provides t that it shall be at not less than one . fourth but shall, if the operation of tho 1 mine be more profitable than one l fourth of it's gross proceeds. be assess 4 ed at the higher rate. And under th' - Colorado law ores and concentrates car l. be made the basis of the estimate fol ! it provides for proceeds of reduction ol n sale.
 n I need not point out this wide diver [ gence between the two laws: our mine: L at never more than one-fifth; Colorado Q mines at never less than one-fourth. k The Colorado law maker. too. seem r to have thought that it was necessar! I to directly provide for the assessmen j. of improvements on producing mine Q and does so in express terms. T Again. in Colorado if the mine owne . neglects to make the statement. it i - made the duty of the assessor to asses l. the mine at its full value-in Counci y Bill No. 45 at one-fifth of its gross pro : ceeds. Why these provisions are lef 1t out of Council Bill No. 45 when We arr y told that Council Bill No. 45 is pattern g ed after the Colorado is not for me t'
 surmise. If it were mere inadvertence II then I submit that the advocates of th'