Weekly journal-miner., 1918-09-11
BACA FLOAT TAX CASE SETTLED
 IN PIMA CO.
HISTORICAL CASE, LONG IN COURTS, RESULTS IN STATE BEING AWARDED LARGE SUM IN THE WAY OF BACK TAXES.

PHOENIX, Sept. 7.-The Arizona State tax commission and the county of Santa Cruz have obtained a de- cision in the famous Baca Float No. 3 case handed down recently by Judge Pattee of the superior court of Pima county who tried the case.
 This was a suit brought to recover back taxes alleged to be due the state of Arizona for the years 1913, 1914, 1915 and 1916 The Baca Float No contains 100000 acres and was as- sessed for Sl,000000 The court of final resort in 1915 determined that the Baca Float No. 3 belonged to the Baca heirs and that title passed in 1868. The total amount of taxes in volved was about S95,O00
 The owners of the float contended | that the assessment was excessive and that in the years 1913 and 1914 the property was not taxable because title had not been adjudicated and that the taxes for the years 1915 and 1916 werervoid because the property was held in two parts but was as- sessed as whole, and for that reason the owners of either part did not know what their taxes amounted to.
 The court held that the taxes on the valuation assessed should be paid | for the years 1915 and 1916 and that the fact of separate ownership of the two strips did not affect the validity of the tax, but that for the years 1915 and 1914 they were not taxable, be- cause the lands were not segregated from the public domain so as to rem der them susceptible to taxation.
 It also was held by the court in the decision that the statute that re- ouires the payment of the taxes as a condition precedent to defense or an action for recovery where the taxes apply to property subject to taxation is valid
 C. NJ. Zandcr, chairman of the state tax commission, appeared before the members of the board of supervisors of Santa Cruz county and requested that the case be appealed as to the judgment for the years 1913 and 1914. The board of supervisors decided to rerfect the appeal.
 With respect to the taxes for these two years the tax commissioners and the officials of Santa Cruz county hold that the land itself was not tax cd. but that the grant to the land was taxed and therefore subject to taxa ton because the grant had been the subject of barter and trade for years before the land itself was definitely segregated from the public domain, and that anything that is transfer able and inheritablc, as this grant cer- tainly was. is also taxable.
 The attorneys for the state and the county of Santa Cruz were Leslie Hardy of Nogales and George liar ben, assistant attorney general, and for the owners of the float, Messrs Kingan and Campbell of Tucson
 Baca Float No. 3, the subject of this long drawn out litigation and which is expected to bring in 3. large amount of money to the state ih back taxes, is one of five units of a 5OO,- OOO-acre grant of land to Juan Baca by the Mexican government many years ago. In the treaty between Mexico and the United States all grants of iand by the Spanish crown and the government of Mexico were tc be recognized by the United Sta tes.
 Two of these grant were in Ari- zona. which then was a part of New Mexico. No. 3 being in Santa Cruz county and No. ; in Yavapai county. Previous to the selection of the land. the property right in the grant chang ed hands several timnes. By act of congress in 1860 Baca was permitted to make his selection of the land but did not do SO until 1863 In 1864 the land was ordered surveyed. but this was not accomplished until 1905.
 Baca Float No. } has had long career in court, and it is not vet end cd. The interior department at one time declined to approve the selec- ton of the land, claiming that it was mineral. After having changed title several times the ownership of the northern half is at present in the name of Bailey and Bouldin and the southern half in the name of Watts and Davis. The land has grown to be of great value.