Daily Arizona silver belt., 1907-01-23

practice, this theory and intent is large
 ly disregarded, and burdens which arc
 grievously unequal are imposed. And
 unfortunately, these burdens are i'm
 posed upon the very people who are kleast able to bear them. Even wher
 property is assessed on an equality of
 valuation the burden falls heaviest upon
 the poor man, for the payment of the few dollars which he is required to con, tribute to the tax collector from his meagcr earnings call for far greater sac rifice tha ndo the thousands which may
 be paid on property that yields a princely income. Indeed, in the latter case there is no sacrifice at all. But the law takes no note of the degree of sac rifice or burden that may be involved, for to distribute the burden with ex- act equality has been found too difficult to be practicable. At all events, we cannot safely undertake at this time any changes in the established theory. The law seeks to protect the poor and the rich alike in all their rights, and in return demands that the rich and the poor shall pay taxes in equal ratio to the value of the property they own. But when unequal assessments are i'm -posed--when the poor man is made to pay far more than his share and the rich man is made to pay fan less than his share-it is instantly evident that the law is not enforced with justice And yet, that is exactly the condition that prevails in Arizona today.
 Particularly is this manifest in the assessment and taxation of mines.
 Mine Taxation
 Farms city and town lots. houses, shops and stores, hanks, railroads, eat tie, sheep and htrses, and all other smaller items of property are assessed at figures which at least approximate equality, and probably at least one.half their value. Bnt the great mines, which produce more wealth and yield greater profits, many times over, than all other classes of property in the territory com bined pay but smallNproportion of the taXes--in no event probably exceed ing or 10 per cent of their proper share. That we may not become cou- fused in our statements and understand ing. 1 wish here to call your attention 10 the fact that l am speaking of the valuation of mines, separately and dis tinetly from that of other property that may be owned by mining com panies, as smelters, machinery, tools, stocks of merchandise, etc. It may ap- pear upon examination of the returns that that particular kind of property may be in most eases fairly valued for taxation purposes. Much confusion has arisen because of q failure to constantly observe this distinction. Until this ad ministration undertook. year and half ago, to equalize taxes somewhat, by increasing the assessments of mines, the big mines that were yielding profits vastly exceeding the profits of all otber property were paying but an insignif cant part of the taxes. To be exact, the total valuation of all property in the territory certified to tue territorial board of equalization in 1905 amounted to but forty eight millions. and in this aggregate the mines were assessed at but two and one half millions of dol lars. To cite but a single example. the immensely valuable copper mines in Coehise county of a single company, pro dacing then sixty million pounds of copper apuually, worth nine million dol lars tapd which during the last year produced al least seventy million pounds of copper, worth at least twelve million doIlars) were valued by the To- .aI assessor in l905 at the ridicslous low figure of fifty six thousand dollars. Nu merous other instances quite as illustra tive of these gross inequalities sould be cited.