Bisbee daily review., 1907-01-23

and understanding, I wish here to call your attention to the fact that I am 1 speaking of the valuation of mines, i separately and distinctly from that of
 other property that may be owned by
 mining companies, as smelters, ma.
 chinery, tools, stocks Of merchandise
 etc, etc. It may appear upon exam
 nation of the returns that that partic.
 ular kind of property known as i'm
 provements on mines, supplies and
 merchandise, etc, etc. relatively to
 other property may be in most cases
 fairly valued for taxation purposes
 Much confusion has arisen because of
 failure to constantly observe this
 distinction. Until this administration
 undertook, a year and a half ago, to
 eQualize taxes somewhat, by increas- ing the assessment of mines, the big
 mines that were yielding profits vast ly exceeding the profits of all other
 property were paying but an insignif- cant part of the taxes. To be exact.
 the total valuation of all property in l the Territory certified to the Territo-
 rial 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 mil lions of dollars. To cite but a single
 example, the immensely valuable cop per mines in Cochise county of a sin. gle company, producing then 50 mil | lion pounds of copper annually, worth nine million dollars (and which during the past year produced at least 70 mil l lion pounds of copper, worth al least | 12 million dollars) were valued by the local assessor in 1905 at the ridiculous | figure of 56 thousand dollars. Numer- nfh inG T1 l tive of these gross inequalities could be cited.
 in this valuation there was an injus- | tice so glaring that the Territorial 1 Board of Equalization undertook to perform the duty specifically imposed upon it by law-it undertook to | EQUALIZE assessments by raising l the valuation of mines. In Cochise county. for instance, J:e local board of | equalization was ordered to multiply ! the figures 1t had fixed for tEe valua- ton of patented mines by Is This Increased the valuation Of the great copper mines l have mentioned from l 56 thousand dollars to $40 thousand dollars. And no candid person can | say that mines that have demonstrat- ed contents in a single year the copper | from which was worth in the market
 nine millions of dollars are over val
 ued for taxation purposes when they
 were assessed at but sS4e 900.
 In making this equalization, how ever, the Territorial Board was con- | fronted by a defect in the existing
 law. The Board had the power to
 raise or lower the valuation of any
 CLASS of property-and patented
 mines were in a separate and distinct | class-but it could not raise or lower
 any given piece of property in that
 class to the exclusion of other proper | ty included in that classification. In
 other words, all patented mines in a
 given county, If any of them were to
 be affected, had to be raised or low
 cred by precisely the same figures. If l the valuation of one mine or more, less than all, were to be increased if | teen fold, all other patented mines on | the assessment rolls Of that county
 had to be increased fifteen fold. And | this Is the necessary and logical re- suit from the situation When the clerk of the Board Of Supervisors cert. | flies to the Territorial Board of Equal iZation the abstract of the assessment rolls, as he is required 10 do. for ex- animation by the Territorial Board, it l is after the local board has EQUAL 1 FEED the valuations. It is equiva. | lent 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 property in the county If As mine is in fact worth | S100O.0O and B's mine is in fact worth
 O,00O.OO, it must be presumed, be-
 cause the local board so certifes, that l they have been fairly valued in that proportions. It can no more properly | be inferred from the returns that all patented mines are valued at the same lfgure, 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 a single classification.
 | IL must be inferred, because that is the intent of the law. that they are as- 1 sessed at different values in just pro l portion to their relative actual values. | And the fact is 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- l tience, let me illustrate a little fur liner. If As mine and B's mine com -Ipose all the mines in a given county, l and their respective values are IS we
 have suggested, let us suppose them to be returned 10 the Territorial Board
 as patented mines, S1, 10000" in oth- l CT words al one-tenth of their value. llf the Territorial Board upon examina- \ ton of the return should be satisfied that the valuation is only one-tenth of the ratio of valuation placed upon other property in that and in other counties, it becomes the plain unques- toned duty of the Board to raise the \ item two patented mines S1 0o-0o" to
 read two patented mines s11 ,oe.0o." ]"
 l. must be assumed that the assessor and the local board have assessed and capitalized properly the relative value | of these mines, and If the increase Y from s1,100.O0 to $11, ,000.00 made by lthe Territorial Board is not above the aggregate value of the two mines, II then no injustice is done to either But if in fact the assessor assessed the
 two mines at the same value-that is
 assessed As mine worth s1,000.00 at S550.0o and Bis mine worth SIG, ,000.00
 at s55o.0c, which is in direct violation
 of his duty, and yet which is constant |ily done-and the local board leaves II the valuation stand as fixed by the as
 sessor, gross injustice must result from the raise made by the Territorial
 Board but without fault or intention
 of that Board. Were the raise made Ii effective. As mine worth $1, 1,o0.00
 would be assessed at s5.500.00, or 5
 1-2 times it's value, and B's mine worth