The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1912-10-25
DOUBTFUL AMENDMENTS.

vote on November 9TH. The Tribune
opened the discussion, but the public
lid not seem to take much interest in
finding ont what the amendments mean,
aud no intelligent explanation OF them
has been given by the advocates of
those amendments.
In our former discussion of these
propositions. we were inclined TO think
that two might possibly he advan-
tagc0uslv ratified; viz. the one reiat.
f, ing 10 the deposit of public moneys,
aud the one relating to the taxation Of
MINES other than metal mines. As 10
the latter, we have from George r,
Goodwin, Esq. the following letter.
which is probably conclusive ON the
point that that amendment ought not to
| bc ratified:
Salt Lake city. oct Il.
Editor Tribunc:-ln your issue of Sep
lembcr l6, 1912. there Was an article
| discussing thc proposed Constitutional
Amend mcniS 10 DC voted upon at tho
coming election; Referring to the eighth
proposed amendment after quoting the
addition 10 Section 4, Article ~, you
sad: (Which simply has the effect OF
puttlnS coal and asphaitum mines on
me Same basis AS metal mines a propo-
sltioh that seems fair enough" | pre-
sumo you overlooked the change in the
earlier part Of the section where ;hc
words valuable mineral deposits" occur
IN the section as ii now stands and
where the proposed amendment strikes
out mineral deposits and Inserts "prcc-
lous metals. Tho proposed addition 90
the section Includes for purposes OF taN-
ati9h an lands containing coal hydro
carbons or stone deposits" The query
Aflses whether there arc any yakuublc
mineral deposits which are included
neither In the words precious metals
or IN coal. hydro -carbouS ur stone de-
posiis' Would gypsum bc Included In
"ther OF these tcrmS2 For the purposes
OF discovering a motive for the proposed
amendments u should be stated that In
December, 1907, the Supreme Court OF
this State IN the case OF Ncphi Plaster
Manufacturing company. VS. Juab Coun-
", ~ Pac. -. held. that gypsum was
Included in the general term mineral de-
posits' Ii seems quite apparent TINT
gypsum would not bo included under
the term precious metals" as used in
the proposed amendment nor in addition
10 IN" section mentioning coal hydro
cdrhons or stone deposits.
Thc query naturally arises why the
powers that have controlled legislation
In this state. secured the adoption OF this
Joint resolution submitting this amend
now tsccking To secure its adoption. Our
supreme Court having held. In the case
cited, that the term valuable mineral
deposits was broad enough Ia include
gypsum why should an amendment
he proposed, which uses the narrower
term valuable precious metals" and
where the proposed addition to the Soc
ton at least leaves Il doubtful whether
gypsum is included in "stone deposits"
There is another change proposed in
This amendment. ]. c, where the phra Sc
shall be taxed AT the price paid tho
United states therefor" is changed 10
than the price paid the United States
therefor" which would allow the various
county assessors To ftX the value at
any less sum, thereby destroying the
uniformity OF assessment now provided
by this section.
1t would also appear that the secret
purpose OF this proposed amendment is
tp recall tGG decision Of our Supreme
Court above referred TO.
GEO. +. GOODWIN
II is clear from the above that the
people ought not TO ratify the amend
mcnt proposed. That leaves but one
out of the eight that has
any apparently beneficial purpose or
would be helpful to the people, most of
them seeming to be schemes 10 make !
the people pay more taxes. as. pointed |
out specifically as to one of them
by Mr.. w. w Ritter The one re.
ferred TO as having a possible benc.
cial effect is that providing for the |
deposit Of public money so that the
State treasury would get interest there |
on. But Judge Bagley of Ogden insists !
that such an amendment would be a |
dangerous one TO pass, since it might |
1nrol,-n al
on money deposited in banks. for it is |
clear that If the money is deposited by |
state authority in the banks the trea-
surer is not responsible for il. Judge |
Baglev points out that under the pres |
ent statutes the State Treasurer is fully |
empowered to enter into contracts with |
the banks whereby the State would |
draw the interest or dailv balances of |
public funds deposited, precisely as
the municipal commission of Salt Lake |
City draws interest on the daily bal. |
ances TO the credit of this city i'm the |
bank or banks making the best bid |
therefor. There is nothing whatever to |
prevent the State Treasurer from do, |
ing precisely the same thing with the |
State funds, for there is no more law !
in the one case than there is in the
other, and no less The contract for the |
deposit of public moneys of the city is !
valid contract, and a |
contract such as the State Treasurer
might legally make with the banks for
the deposit in them Of public moneys |
:, ,,I,l.x. IL. /
on the daily balances, would also un
be legal contract. and !
any explanation. bubble. or evasion 20 |
the contrary IS au unworthy plea which !
no public servant has the least RIGHT |
to urge.