The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1917-12-12
SUPREME COURT
TURNS Down Mp.
Rehealing in Reservation
Coal Tax List Denied
in Opinion.

petition of the state for rchearing OF
the case of the Northern Pacific Rail-
way company in Mussellshell county,
in regard to taxation on coal reser-
vations, the supreme court today in
a decision by Justice tSaner, eluci-
dates it's original decision, holding the
mineral reservations are taxable and
also it's original decision in the preced-
ent case
THE motion for rehearing in this
case" says the court, proceeds up
on the assumptions that this court
by its opinion has ovcrrulcd Northern
Pacific Railway company VS.. Mjelde
ct al, As Montana PSI, and has in ef-
feet decided that reservations such
as the one here involved are not tax
able. The briefest glance at the
opinion will suffice to dispel the lat
ter assumption, while former is equal
~ groundless.
THAT we are justified in the posi-
ton taken, if not in all the Ian
guage employed, will, we think. be
granted by whoever may consider the
premises. The reservation in qucs-
ton is DUAL a corporal hereditamcnt
as to coal and iron; an incorporsl
hercditament. as to the right to enter
the lands conveyed, to explore for coal
or iron and to extract the same when
found, using so much of the surface
as may be necessary. In the nature
of things, the latter could not be
mine; but it is property presumably
valuable, not exempt, and therefor
taxable as an interest in realty; and
the difficulty which may confront the
assessor in ascertaining the value can
be no bar to taxation.
With the former--the corporal
hereditament-the situation is some
what different; it. too is property,
but it consists, by the hypothesis of
coal or iron in place; coal or iron in
place may be a mine in proper sense
of that term and we are
convinced that it is such within the
meaning of the word as used in sec
ton 3 of article XII"
Referring to the taxation of mines,
after referring to net proceeds and
improvements, the court continues:
Finally they are to be taxed upon
United States at the price paid there
for. unless CD such surface is used
and has a value for other than min
ing purposes, in which event they are
taxable at such value, or (c) If no,
bought from the United States, then
at the value of such surface consid-
cred as real estate without reference
to mineral content below the surface
1T follows too, that the taxable
value of the incorporal part of the
reservation is to be dcduced from the
whole value of the surface; or as
stated in the opinion, from the cash
value of the land, emitting the dc =
post from the estimate. because the
rights rcserved~-apa from the de-
postal relate to the surface and
limit the owners dominion over the
surface.
TT is said in the opinion that such
value as the surface of mine or
mining claims purchased from the
United States may have for other
than mining purposes, must be added
to the purchase price and taxed ac-
Cordingiy. This was an inadyert :
ancc. our view as stated above is
that the purchase price in such cases
is the standard of value, unless the
surface is issued and has value fol-
other purposes. in which event the
latter is the taxable valuable.
with the Qualification suggested
above. We feel constrained to adhere
to the decision