Arizona republican., 1907-03-02


 March 1. 1907. To the Council and the House of Rep resentatives:
 The question of taxation, especially as it applies to mining property, has gained even a greater importance than when | 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 de- sire of your committees having charge of this bill. l appeared before them al a meeting held by them on the 21st instant at which were present members of both houses of the Legislative As sembly. advocates of the bill known as Council Bill No. 45 (the only measure as I now understand it under consid- eration by you) and some others. As it was apparent that the bill was de- signed to change radically our revenue system, it then seemed to me-and it does now-that it was incumbent up- on those who advocated its adoption to show either an evil to be re1nedied or a good to be accomplished by its pro- visions. and that those provisions are adeuuate 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 sim ply a polemic discussion of the subject in general. I did state that l was op- posed to the bill in principle and in de- tail as that bill is now before you. I assume that it is your desire that I should. and as it is entirely within my province to do so. I now will, suggest 10 you certain remedial legislation, ap- plicable not only to the taxation of mines. but to every other class of prop erty in the territory designed 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 a bill for that purpose which I transmit with this message.
 Before, however. giving you some Of my reasons if not all of them for rec ommending to you the passage of the bill I transmit herewith. 1t appears to me that I should state some of the req sons which influence my opposition to the bill pending before you.
 In doing this I shall endeavor to avoid as far as I can. a mere contro- versial spirit. In this as in all mat ters you and I should be governed by an earnest desire to learn what is the right thing to do and then do it. Neith- CT of us can do this if We allow our selves to be influenced by fear or favor by prejudice or bias.
 There are certain principles applic- able to the question of taxation that I must assume are indisputable. think one of them can be stated to be 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 modified howev- CT. is embodied in our revenue system. is the one recognized in every just system of taxation and never ignored except inadvertently or by corrupt or iIl-advised legislation or by dishonest property owners or in practice by in- efficient or corrupt taxing officers.
 That principle I may state 10 be 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 it 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 rule of inequality of the burden-and who has the hardihoOd to advocate the rule that the burdens of taxation should be unequally bOrne2
 Whether the taxation of One-fifth Of a mines product would yield this or that sum of money is of purely secon- dary consideration. The proper distri- button 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 ex- pression. The application Of this rule in practice would impose the rule oi equality of taxation indisputably. Ii is equally true that a valuation of all property at one-half of its value or al any uniform fraction of its value would insure uniformity. But to value some classes of property at its cash value others at 75 per cent of that value, stil others at 50 per cent, others at 30 others at 10 and others at per cent destroys equality, imposes gross in- equality and consequent injustice.
 If we are to depart at all from tho statutory rule of assessing at the casf value. then simple justice demands thai the departure and the degree of depart ure should be the same as to all class es of property.
 Council Bill No. 45, the one you have under consideration. does propose tC change this rule radically. For the mo- ment it is not material to say whether the rule proposed by that bill will raise the valuation Of mines to a sum above their cash vaiue-that is above thal value in the words of our statute "ai which the property would be taken ir payment of a just debt due from a sol vent debtor or whether it would re- duce it 10 one-half of or to one-tentf or to one-fiftieth of that value-it doe' inevitably depart from the rule of casi value: and for this departure, is good and sufficient reason advanced?
 IL is urged that the value of mine! cannot be ascertained. IL is not urged that they have no value. If they hav' no value then of course they would no be taxed. But l must insist that they have a value, and that value can b' reasonably ascertained. I am free t' admit that it may be very difficult t'