Weekly journal-miner., 1915-02-10
STAPLEY'S VIEW ON
 NEW MINE TAX LAW
By O. s. Stapley in the Phoenix
 Republican.


 l have carefully noted the Honor able C. B. Woods statement in The Republican of February 4, page 10. It seems from the first paragraph that Mir. Wood is authority on the mine tax bill. He goes on and ex- plains the mine tax bill very elabor- ately, and cites instances for compar- isons, in his way, as C. B. Wood can, as you know. And knowing that many will read your valuable paper and be swayed, more or less, by the papers influence, l believe the read CTS should know the facts regarding this bill.
 Using the Good Book, Mir. Wood quotes it, also says, "A man who judg- eth a matter before he heareth (both sides) it, is unwise" Now for the facts as l understand them. First, that the assessor shall assess all ma chinery, reduction works and all oth- CT visible property of any mine or corporation just as all other property in the state is assessed, and in addi- tion, all mining lands. Mir Wood does not mention this. Further, all producing mines are assessed l2 l-2 per cent of their gross output, and after all expenses that are incurred producing this gross and making the net, have been taken out, then what ever net is left is multiplied four times, and this added to the gross. and the improvements added to that, makes the total valuation of the mine.
 The amendment made to this bill says that all mines that produce for three months or more, shall be as sessed for the year by the assessor or tax commission. This class of mines is left to the discretion of the com mission for adjusting the taxes on this class of mine.
 Now for MT. Woods example on the Chalmers property, total valua- ton $56,04000; he paid s, ,33375 taxes. By this. infer, means county, state and city as it is based on an income of $42,000 per year.
 Now if you will take the tax rate in Maricopa county, add to that the county school tax and the city tax of Phoenix, and it totals $l,O56.35. Now note that the total state tax on this property is $277.40. Out of this $227.40 there is $78.45 comes back to Mari copa county for school purposes, leaving a balance from this property that the state retains, $l9695. This is not so bad Mir Wood. Why didn't you figure it?
 The ground was assessed at $5l $40. Who did this? The tax commission on the >Somers' system by the sanction of someone, no doubt Who is to blame if it is too high? The improve ments are $4,2OO. Who did this? It brings $4,20O per year revenue. Does mt that improvement figure look dwarfed?
 Now Mir. Wood, candidly, why did you vote for the mine tax bill May 13, 1913? Did you have some selfish motive, or was it a good bill? Ii it was a good bill then, the one now be
  fore the legislature is a better one. With the same production and prices that have been obtained for the last ten years is what the taxes will be based on, if this new bill is passed. and in my opinion it will bring to the state from ten to fifteen per cent more money than it has, in the past two years. do not consider this bill special legislation, nor neither can I interpret it that way. For the mining industry is different from any other class of property that can poSsi- ply be assessed, and we have got to arrive at some basis for capital to work on, or our mines will not be developed in this state.
 Understand me, do not wish to ake any powers from the tax com- but I do believe that for the good of our state and for the bene- it of all the people in it. that there mould be legislation along this line 10 to settle for a number of years t least, any agitation in regard to mines, and after this is done, 1 am ,ure that the mines will have the greatest impetus that this country las ever known, and I believe that vc should look at this bill from all ides, and give it just and fair treat nent without prejudice, and with due and l am sure after his is done and the thinking people # this state have looked into this natter carefully they will find that bill something along these lines and much, the same as this is drawn, hould be passed at this legislature.
 TUCSON SECOND.