Gilpin observer., 1911-04-27
Dangerous
Mining Bill

In every legislature OF this state.
there are always from one to three
or four members who introduce bills,
the effect Of which whether intend
ed purposely) )stends to interfere with
and cripple the mining industry Of
the state. At least two such meas
ures have been introduced in the
present legislature. One provides for
a system Of taxation Of mining prop
erty that is wholly unjust and the
other is what Ia known ae the mine.
drainage bill.
This last bill mo. s2s) introduced
by Senator Van Tilborg. of Teller
county is as unfair as the mine tax.
alton bill Is unjust. The mine drain
age bill provides that one-third of
the property owners in stated sec
ton may form drainage district, ap-
point supervisors, hire a clerical
force. engineers, etc., determine the
system OF mine drainage to be
employed and assess all the property
in the district for the cost to issue
bonds. to let contracts, etc. The two
thirds Of the mine owners who have
not entered into the plan and may
be absolutely opposed to the scheme,
have no voice in opposition and their
property becomes subject to lean
for any bonded Indebtedness that may
be assessed by those creating the
drainage district. This levy may be
made to a maximum Of 50 mills tax
alton annually.
The operation Of the bill would
mean the confiscation Of a great deal
Of property as many mines could not
stand the drainage taxation. It Is
doubtful II the bill II passed would
ever become operative owing to num-
erous constitutional objections, but
nevertheless 1t is advisable for the
mining sections to discourage its pas
sage and assist in defeating all leg
islation harmful to the mining In
dustry.
Morrison & Desoto. recognized as
mining authority Of high standing.
have written the following opinion Of
the measure. showing that 1t would
be declared unconstitutional II 1t did
pass:
SENATE BILL NO. 329.
An act in relation to mine drain
age districts.
Sec. 1. is unfair by reason Of being
based upon one third valuation for
the purposes Of taxation.
Sec. 2 Is unfair in that. 1t Is based
upon the acreage when the acreage
has nothing to do with the valuation
Of mining property, NOR can 1t possi-
bly, determine that the. proposed
drainage will be common benefit to
all the mining properties embraced in
such district.
Secs. 4. S. 6. failed to provide for
such notice as would give a court
such jurisdiction to make any orders
or take any proceedings that would
cucumber the property, therefore
such order would be invalid.
Sec. 8. The orders Of the court as
to the boundaries should not be DIFF
ferent from tho boundaries mention
ed In the pcteition.
Sec. 10. providing for the forma-
tion OF corporation and certainly
has nothing Of a municipal character
and the contracts OF such corpora
ton would be ultra wires.
Sec. 15. providing for the assess
ment upon the property to be bene-
fitted 10 impossible before the drain
age has been accomplished.
Sec. 10. providing for the payment
Of expenses Is illegal. because It Is
an attempt to impose upon the own
er An circumference Of his PROPERTY
without his consent.
Sec. 20. is illegal because II pro-
vides for the collection Of taxes i'll
egally assessed.
Sec. 21. IL illegal because It pro-
vides for the taking OF the property
Of another without his consent and
without any Just compensation, the
remaining sections Of the bill are III
egal for the reasons set forth in the
foregoing specified objections.
Sec. 26, IL an attempt to repeal
the general drainage act Of the leg
islature concerning the drainage of
mines which act was based upon
facts which It was necessary to prove
by competent testimony ~ to tho
relative benefits accruing to tho per.
son whose property was drained.