Yerington times. [volume] (Yerington, Nev.) 1907-1932, 1912-04-06
BIG PROBLEM FOR COURTS.

If certain share of the revenue of State is to
be apportioned out and collected from the mining
industry it follows that any decline in production
and the disappearance OF producers will throw
large proportional burden upon unproductive ter
ritory This will be felt the more as the growth OF
population increases the fiscal needs OF the State.
Some such change is to be noted in the history OF
the revenue in Colorado whose mineral develop
inent in spite of the large annual production of the
metals has kept pace with the steady growth
of the commonwealth. Indeed, it is change which
is apt to appear in the history of any mining State
which has advanced relatively far Colorado
in the building OF cities and the establishment of
other institutions which belong to civic growth.
AS the administrators of the revenue begin to
feel the effects OF lowering proportion of wealth
from the Mines unless they have been far-sghted
enough to adjust themselves to it, their tendency
will be to seek compensation from the holders of
mineral territory that is not largely productive.
The argument will be heard that the failure to make
prospect ground productive is sufficient warrant for
taxing such holdings into other lands, without re-
gard to the thought that the fault may be in the
ground rather than the owners thereof. This is
of the symptoms of the change from ample to insult
fcient revenue in mining State
These reflections suggested by the latest
decision of the Colorado Supreme Court with
spec to the perennial tax dispute of Cripple Creek
The court continues to uphold the constutionality
of the revenue law which has been in effect since
1902 and aside from this it passes specifically upon
two points which have not been hitherto adjudica-
ted 1t holds that the legislature has the right to fix
the sum of $1,000 the minimum gross production
of property to be classed producer" for the
DurDOSe of valuation all below that amount being
classed as ''non-producers.
The court also holds that the term locality
used in the law does not mean district" but the
immediate neghborhood of the property described,
reference being made that phase of the law which
provides that non-producing property shall not be
assessed higher valuation per than the low
est valuation per assessed against producers
similarly situated A similar situation must refer to
the immediate vicinity
In the case here adjudcated the decision OF the
Supreme Court lowers the assessment upon large
number OF 'non-producers' which combined to
bring the action. 1t is therefore victory for the
holder OF unproductive mining ground although not
much OF victory sought, since it re-
stricts the of the term locality.
From another point of view it may enable the
adoption of legislation under which the amount OF
the gross production OF producer" will be raised
(as has been done before) change the border
line of classification to throw greater number OF
mines into the list of 'non-producers' and to thus
indirectly raise the acreage assessment of the low
est producer in given locality" The obvious eff
feet of such legislative change would be to permit
higher average valuation OF unproductve ground.
Mining Science.