The copper era and Morenci leader., 1913-05-09
IN THE N l N ES
WH|PPLE WRITES ON SUBJECT IF MINE
 TAXATION
Believes They Should Bear Same Pro- portion of Burden As Other
 Property.

M Whipple, the mines of Arizona
 should be assessed for much more
 than 400 per cent of the net produc.
 tion and 121s per cent of the gross 1 Saturday, when he voted no" on
 the tax commission bill, to which the Graham mine tax bill was attached as
 a rider, MT. Whipple explained his
 vote as follows:
 1 Tn explaining my vote, I wish to
 make few preliminary statements When I consented to become a can didate for representative to the first
 state legislature hoped tha:, if elect
 ed, my efforts in the legislature might
 result in real benefit to the state, and
 in no other class of legislation had I hoped to be able to accomplish a greater good to the state than in as-
 sisting to place in the statutes of Arizona laws that would result in an equita ble assessment of all classes of property at an actual cash valuation We all know that of all the func- tions exercised by government, the
 right to levy and collect taxes is plainly the most important and neces- sary; and it is evident to the most minimizing that without revenues,
 the business of administering the gov
 ernment and executing the laws could not continue. The mode of levying
 and collecting taxes on the different
 classes of property by a state consti-
 tuteS the system. If the system is a
 just one, all classes of property must
 be so assessed as to make the bur dens just and equitable between the different classes. When the laws
 are such as to make the burden of
 taxation fall more heavily on one
 class of property than on another, to
 nrf bo-
 come tyranny; and not less so when
 the laws are made by a legislature than when it results through the con-
 mands of tyrannical king or en-
 peror. Therefore, in applying this
 test to our state it takes no expert to
 know, and it is universally admitted,
 that taxes have not been equitabl.y
 levied and collected on the different
 classes of property. The mining ln-
 dustry having been the most highly
 favored on the one hand, and farm ing on the other hand, most discrins- mated against.
 Tn the first session of the first state legislature, s. B. 4S, the law creating the state tax commission and giving this commission supervisoral | powers over county boards of super | visitors and county assessors in mat ters pertaining to taxation, and sev era1 other measures calculated to har- | monlze the taxing machinery of the | state, were passed. It was found, | however, that some of the provisions i of these measures conflicted with the | constitutions; it was consequently | made necessary to pass an amend same to the people at the next cleo tion in order that the provisions Of these bills could be carried into ef- feet. The people of the state indi- cated by their votes that they were | in hearty accord with the efforts of the legislature, and passed the consti- tutional amendment by an overwhelIn-
 ing majority. Now, however, at the first opportunity the legislature has had since such ratification by the peo- pie to perfect these laws, we see, as ] result, a creature that is neither )ne thing nor the other, neither fish nor fowl, and if finally made into law would in effect leave us in condition IS unsatisfactory as we were in when Arizona became state
 The attempt being made to single z >ut the mining industry and make of ( his class favored one ought never o be consumated; as it would result I n allowing this industry to fix a tax f able base that is much less than half Y he cash valuation of the industry, I md less than half of what other ( classes of property are assessed at S n support of the foregoing statement S
 submit the following evidence: I
 The gross output of the mines of g he state last year was, in round num- ( ,ers, $61, ,46S,527. The net (after all 4 expenses, upkeep, etc, were paid, a vas $24,735, ,511, which shows over 40 | Der cent of the gross to be clear II profit. On the basis proposed by I he measure, i. e., four times the net c ,lus 121a per cent of the gross, would t produce $106,625,607 as taxable f 'ase. Now this would show from the c let returns from the mines the pro- l. ucing mines-an income of upwards t f 23 per cent. On the other hand t he net income of these mines would e e s per cent on $314, ,193, ,SS9, and 8 ubmit that no other business of the tate, except perhaps the banking
 will show a clear profit of
 per cent, and no other line of legi- a innate business in the United States f r the world will show, for the magni- r ude of the business done, such R rofits as are now enjoyed by the fl liners of Arizona, and no other busi- Ie ess can be and is carried on with V uch system and care and such an il bsolute knowledge and certainty of f, he results. W
 If farms were assessed on the 9 anne basis as is proposed for mines, e md now valued at $100 per acre il 'ould be taxed on a basis of $34 per ri ere here, and the average farm for il ne entire state would not show a tax a ble basis of more than $25. Live e, tock, the mercantile business and all e ther classes would have to be low " red, thereby perpetuating the pres h. nt system of swearing to valuation m our proprty that is false. On the m l.
 tner hanu' II mines, as well as other st aSSeS of property. were assessed at d n actual cash valuation, we could F, now in our state the largest per cap- s a wealth and the least rate of taxa fe