Weekly Arizona journal-miner., 1907-01-30

| utinn purposes. Much confusion has arisen because of a failure to constant. ly observe this distinction. Until this administration undertook. n year and q half ago. to cqualiZc taxes somewhat, by increasing the assessments of mines. the big mncs that were yielding profits vastly exceeding the profits of all other property. were paying but an insig l nihcaui part of the taxes. To he exact. the total valuation of all property in the Territory certified to the Tcrritor- inl Ioard of Equalization in 1905. amounted to but SIS ,OOO.OOU, and in this aggregate the mines were assessed at bu, $2.jOO.u0O. To cite but a single example, the immensely valuable cop per mines in 'ochisc. of single com. pnny. producing then GO,oo0. .00O pounds of copper annually, worth SD,oOO,OOO (and which during the past year pro. duccd ni least 1O.OOo.OOO pounds of copper. worth at least Sl2.O0O. .0OO). wcrr valued by inc local assessor in 1905 at the ridiculous figure of sj6.OOo. | Numerous other instances quite ns Il. lustraiivc of these gross inequalities could hc cited.
 In this valuation there wns an in. justice so gIaring that the Territorial Board of Equalization undertook to per. form the duty specifically imposed upon it by law undertook to EQUALIIE asscssmcnts by raising the valuation of mines. In Cochsc county. for instance, the local Board of Equalization was ordered to multiply the figures it had fixed for the valuation of patented mines by Ij. This increased tho valu. alton of the great copper mines | have mentioned from $56,OO0 to $siO,OOO. And no candid person can say that mines that have demonstrated contents in a single year the copper from which was worth in the market s0,O0O,0O0 are over valued for taxation purposes when they were assessed at $siO.0O0.
 In making this equalization. however, the Territorial Board was confronted by defect in the existing law. The Board had the power to raise or lower tho valuation of any CLASS of prop. crty-and patented mines were sep. ara,c and distinct class-but it could not raise or lower any given piece of property in that class to the exclusion of other property included in that clas. sification. In other words. all patented mines in given county, q. any of them were to bc affected. had to bc raised or lowered by precisely the same fig urcs. If the valuation of one mine or more, legs than all, were to bc in creased fifteen fold. all the other pat cnted mines on the assessment rolls of that county had also to be increased if teen fold. And this is the necessary and logical result from the situation When the Clerk of the Board of Sup ervisors ccrtifcs to the Territorial Board of Equalization the abstract of the assessment rolls, as he is required to do for examination by the Terri torial Board. it k after the local Board has EQUALlZED the valuations. It is equivalent to a certified statement that As mine has been fairly valued, and that B's mine has also been fairly valued. each relatively to the other, as well as relatively to all other prop. crty in the county. If As mine Is in fact worth $l,OO0.OO and B's mine is in fact worth sl0,O0O.0O, it must be pre- sumcd, because the local Board SO ccr tifes, that they have been fairly valued m that proportion. 1t can no more properly bc inferred from the returns that all patented mines are valued at the same figure, than that it should be inferred that all the town lots returned by any county are assessed at the same value simply because they are included in single classification.
 It must be inferred. because that is the intent of the law, that they are assessed at different values in just pro. portion to their relative actual values And the fact K that neither are all mines, nor all town lots, each of the same value with all the others.
 At the expense of your time and pa tience, let me illustrate a little further If As mine and B's mine compose all the mines in n given county, and their respective values are as we have sug gested, let us suppose them to bc re. turned to the Territorial Board as "patcntcd mines, $l,lOO.OO,' in other words, at onc-tenth of their value. If the Territorial Board. upon cxamina- ton of the return, should bc satisfied that the valuation is only onc-tenth of the ratio of valuation placed upon other property in that and in other counties, it becomes the plain unqucs- toned duty of the Board to hsise the item 1.-two patented mines, *1,lOO, " to read "two patented mines &11 ,OOO. !" It must he assumed that the Assessor and the local Boavd have assessed and capitalized properly the relative value of these mines, and if the increase from $l,l 10000 to &l1,000.00 made by the Territorial Board is not above the az gregatc value of the two mines, then no injustice is done to either. But if in fact, the Assessor assessed the two mines at tho same value that is, as sessed As mine, worth $l ,0OG.OO, at s55O.00, and B's mine, worth siO,. OO0.00 at $55O.OO, which is in direct violation of his duty, and yet which Is constantly donc--and the local board leaves the valuation stand as fixed by the Assessor, gross injustice must re-