The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-10-26
AGAINST AMENDMENTS.

of the evils proposed in some OF those
amendments. and that opposition 10
them is developing accordingly. as n
was certain to 10 as the understanding
of what those amendments really moan
began to be general in the public
mind. As prominent citizen expressed
ii Yesterday. '.there 8 joker in every
one of them
Yesterday morning VIC printed a
strong presentation by Judge George r.,
| Goodwin against the proposed amend
meut that is the eighth in order of the
proposals as officially published. Mr.,
w. w Ritter is out publicly in opposi.
tion 10 the proposed amendment Of Sec
ton 3. Article Is. which would provide
''actual money value. y Mr.. Ritter
points out that this would be euor-
mously oppressive upon the people, and
would open the door to fsvoritisms and
unwarrapted assumptions of many kinds.
In our discussion Of this proposition on
September 10th, we said that the propo-
sitiop seems TO be "intended to give
assessors greater show TO increase
valuations, aud that it is "a doubtful
proposition against the taxpayer 1t
seems to be a clear case that that pro-
posed amendment which is the sew
cuth in sequence in the official publ
cation, ought to he voted down by all
taxpayers for their own protection.
The final proposed amendment, which
NAV be said to be the eighth, Is decep-
tive in character. At first we were in-
clined to think that it was fair. or
at least harmless. Later, however, and
specifically on October 10th, We pointed
out the evil nature of this amendment,
showing that il would result III double
taxation. and that it was UNJUST, and
hostile to the mining Interests Of the
State. This view is strongly supported
by the Hon. c. :. Narisn In an I'M
answerable communication, AS follows:
Salt Lake City. Oct. %.
Editor Tribune:-It is proposed by Sem
ate Joint Resolution No. 10: TO submit
for adoption by the people at the com
ing election. an amendment oi SeS''"''
4. Article Is, Of The Consntuitioam axss ,,s
A
va sluarion for taxation OF all mines anu
mining claims, including coal: aiter pur
chase from the government, at the price
paid the government therefor and In az
5ition 10 such tax. provides that. the
met annual proceeds OF all mines ana
mining claims shall be taxed as
provided By law. :. 3.
that "Al lands containing coal
hydro carbcns OF stone deposits, aiter
purchase thereof from the United states
land and the inn net pIproaaets % of ali ali
valuable deposits contained therein NOT
taxed in a crude or raw condition shali
be taxed as provided by law.
provision OF the original section, leaving
The nNed valuation Of other mines and
mining claims as before.
1t is also proposed to amend Section
. Article Is, by substituting Tor the
provision requiring all property to be
taxed according TO its value In money
so that every person or Gofpo
ration shall pay tax IN proportion 10
The following: ''The Legislature shall
provide by law for just and equitable
assessment of the property, OF the State
at its astus, money ysue Val TWO provisions
seems to be the same. the intention in
each being to tax all property at It's
actual money value. II this be true,
il will make no difference whether or
not this last amendment Is carried. So
we may consider the effect OF the pro-
posed amendment as TO coal lands II IL
shall be adopted
In order to ascertain the actual money
value OF ccsl lands, it would be neces-
sary 10 ascertain as nearly as might be
possible the quantity and value OF the
sonabIy practicable in the case Of work
ing miue which had been prospectcd
and developed, Where. however, the
claim was undcvcloped. and the extent
III. a t,,,N
disclosed, the valuation would be largely
one Of chance. In all cases, the situa-
tiou OF the land With relation to rail-
roads, population. etc, must BE taken
difficulty Of fairly equalizing the assess
mcnts between the different owners would
seem TO be practically insurmounta bic
The question Is one 10 be determined by
experts and is entirely beyond the or
dnaIy assessor or commissioner. More
over, this amendment contemplates the
imposition Of this tax as ono additional
to tho tax upon the net proceeds, which
is double taxation in a most pronounced
and ineuuiiable form.
As at presen, advised there seems
TO be no good reason why coal in place
should he valued for taxation as a part
OF the land. and again subjected to the
tax upon the net proceeds OF tho mine
Such a tax Las the merit Of certainty
in place can avoid its burden when it
becomes commodity of commerce II
Is also equitable. because il attaches
only after deduction made for the ex-
pcnscs or mininG, etc. On the other
hand. the obstacles in the way OF valuinC
the land with the coal in place are
apparent. and. II may we'll he doubt cd
Thethc" in any case. fair aud lust re-
sct can hc attained. Eut. why should
coal be subjected 10 double laX.
II 10 unJuSt 10 tho miner and operator
as well ss TO the people. since they viii
have to pay 4, in tho end. The question
Is important. and u is to bc regretted
that - litle attention has been given
10 the amendment which provides for il
{. s, NARIAN.
1t seems 10 bc clear ease ;bo more
these Amendments are inquired into.
that,the truc interests of the people lie
III defeating ali Of them. The most
plausible one o. the eight is that which
provides for The deposit OF public
moneys IN such manner that the State
will gCl the benefit Of the interest on
daily balnnccs. But, as pointed out by
ms hcrc:oforc. and also bv Judge Bag.
lev Of Ogden, there is nothing whatever
In the laws and constitution as they
stand, which would prevent pny trcas