Arizona republican., 1907-03-02

CT property.
 I admit that some mines in the ter ritory have become exhausted and that others may become so. but it never comes as a surprise-anc while this may be so. it has almost always been confined to gold and silver mines and not to copper mines And Is not this fact taken into consideration by invest ors? Is it not a fact that gold and sil- yer mines are not as valuable In the market, as investments, as copper mines-is not this the case in the mar ket: and if so. should it not also be talk en into consideration by the assessor and by the board of supervisors?
 If it be difficult to ascertain the ex act value of q producing mine. that does not mean that We cannot ap- proach 1t somewhat nearly-and in all justice we should approach 1t with fair effort to get at its true value. You know and l know that there is no dan ger under our present system, of over estimating the value of the producing mines for the purpose of taxation. That there may be some element of uncer tainty of the longevity of a particular mine will always be taken into consid- eration by the assessor and the local board-that if they or either of them fail in that respect and over-estimate the value of a mine, or of any other property there Is complete remedy un- der our present law
 one of my objections to Council Bill No 45 is. therefore, that 1t is unfair, unjust and unequal to apply the rule of fixing the valuation of mines by talk ing fifth of their annual product as their value unless the same rule Is applied to all other kinds of property the establishment of different rules makes equality impossible.
 have the further objection that even as among producing mines the rule laid down in that bill will inevit ably work gross inequality. l need not more than suggest to you that a mine yielding per cent copper ore Is not worth nearly one-half as much as one that yields per cent copper ore even if all other things were equal and the gross bullion output be identically the same.
 I need not more than further suggest that some mines are producing and are paying from even as high as 30 or even 100 per cent profit, while others are producing at a loss. Council Bill No. 45 permits of no adjustment of these gross inequalities. Admittedly the mine producing at a loss and the one producing at 50 or 100 per cent profit, although their product may equal in value. are not of the same value. Some opportunity ought to be afforded to ad- just this inequality-but Council Bill No. 45 prevents 1t. If 1t be said that the mine owner whose mine, while pro- ducing. is producing at loss or at a small profit is nevertheless content with the provisions of Council Bill No. 45. it can be but upon one theory. and that is because. even at the rate fixed by Council Bill No. 45 is not as 10 him excessive-but 1t must then follow that the mine which produces at great profit is grossly undervalued-and with that situation. although the owner of the unprofitable mine may be content. neither you nor l should be, and the taxpaying public will certainly not be. l The owner of mines profitable and un- profitable should not compromise away the rights of the public. But the ln- equality does not stop here. l have so l far spoken of producing mines. It was stated. I cannot say with what accu- racy. that under the provisions ot | Council Bill No. 45. that producing mines would be assessed at about $li.- OOO. .OOO.00. and the non- producing mines would be assessed at S6.0OO.- OGO.OO. That is, on the very face of 1t, ] gross injustice to the non-prOducer. ! If a producing mine Is worth. for the ! ar other fraction of its annual product, | whether that product be profitable or not. the undeveloped. producing mine must. in the very nature of things ! be worth nothing. And the glaring in- ] justice becomes more gross as the pro- ! ducing mine is more and more profit able IL reverses the rule that taxes should be borne in proportion to the ability of the tax payer to bear them ! and makes those least able to pay, to pay the most taxes I think need not i elaborate on that feature of the bill If it be said that it is because of the l improvements upon non-producing mines that are taxed $6.O00,000.00. still think it unfair. l think may say that machinery upon an undeveloped
 n-producing mine is not of the same
 value as that on mine that is being
 profitably operated even though the
 machinery on both may be identical III
 kind. extent and character.
 But if the object of fixing upon percentage of production is to secure
 uniformity of valuation of mining
 property. which of course it does not
 do. that object could just as well be
 accomplished by taking 50 15. loo pei
 cent of or twice, or thrice or any
 number of times the value of the an
 nual production as it could by taking 20 per cent of it.
 The proposition to assess producine
 mines at one fifth of their annual bull lion product is. I think, therefore, tc
 summarize. unfair:
 lst. As to all other classes of prop
 erty because the like rule of taking one-fifth of the gross annual produc
 as its valuation is not applied to oth'
 CT property.
 2nd. Because it is an unequal rule as
 applied to producing mines themselves
 for the value of property is not deter
 minable alone from gross products oi
 given parts of gross products. but up
 on relative profits This rule may re-