Weekly journal-miner., 1915-02-10
MINE TAX BILL WILL
 BE HARD ON PRESCOTT
(By C. B. Wood in the Phoenix Re publican.O

puDH(dllsJ
 l have been besieged with queries
 as to the necessity and as to what
 will happen if the mine tax bill that
 is before the legislature becomes a
 law. There is certainly no necessity for
 the law as there is no reason why the
 mines should not be taxed as other
 property, and a great number of req
 sons why they should.
 By the way this really is not a
 mine tax law at aN, but bill for the
 benefit of a few large corporations. Only % companies come under this law and six companies own over three-fourths of the property covered by the bill. The Copper Queen, The
 Superior & Pittsburg, The Ray Con-
 solidated, and the United Verde own 66- million of the no million present assessed valuation Add the Miami and Arizona Copper Company, Cliff ton and you have over three-fourths or 82 millions of the no million val uation Add four more companies the Detroit, the C. & A., the Old Dominion, and the Shattuck and you have over 100 millions of the ll0 millions assessed against producing mines.
 These ten mines represent about one-fourth of the entire property val ues of the state. They not only pay handsome dividends these hard times but some have declared fancy extra dividends.
 No one wants to liar" these con- panies loose from their possessions. and certainly no one in Maricopa county desires to impose any unjust burdens on these companies, however great and successful they may be. We simply want them to submit to the same laws and the same burdens as the rest of us and nothing more.
 This bill is a very important one to all the taxpayers in the state as well as to these ten companies. If the valuation of these big companies are cut it means that an increased tax must be paid by all the other tax payers. While the n-producing mines and all other classes of prop erty in the mining counties will have most of the burden to bear, Maricopa county Is vitally interested because it pays nearly one-ffth of the entire expense of the state government and the state institutions.
 The popular impression is that the mine tax law provides for tax upon l portion of the gross production plus four times the net proceeds.
 Section } of the bill uses the fol lowing language: Each and every productive mine, as defined in this act, shall be valued at an amount equal to twelve and one-half Q21a) per centum of the gross proceeds, plus four times the net proceeds"
 Section IS uses the following lang uage: Nothing in this act shall be taken or constituted to be tax on either the gross or net proceeds or earnings of any mine, mining claim or group of either, it being the pur pose of this act to use aforesaid gross and net proceeds solely and only as a basis for reckoning the valuation of mines and mining claims for pur poses of taxation"
 The general law commands the tax commission to tax the property of the state at its cash value, and this bill commands the tax commission to fix the valuation of the mines for taxing purposes as stated above.
 The criticism on the bill is that 1 one-eighth of the gross plus four times the net proceeds IS not true indicative of the valuation of any l property whatsoever whether it be mining, farming, business or com 
 Let me illustrate. Mir. L. H. Chal- mers of this city referred to piece of property of which he is an agent in a public speech at a banquet the other night. This property is locat- ed on the south side of Washington street and is occupied by Hurley's Meat Market and the Bank Exchange The lot on which the building is To- ,ated is assessed at $5l $40, the i'm at $4,200, total of $56,- )40 MT. Chalmers states that his gross income is $4.20O; that he pays j, ,333.75 taxes So counting insur- .nce, etc, his net income on the must be less than $2,8OO. -Four times this net income would ,e $11,200 plus one-eighth of the ,ross or one-eighth of $4,20O or $525 making a total valuation according to ; he mine tax law of SLIPS, against 1