Arizona republican., 1918-09-07
bACAFL0AT TAX
 ACT|ONDEC|DED
 IN PIMA COUNTY
State Expects to Recover Large Sum in Back Taxes
 from Owners-Case is One
 of Historical Interest

The Arizona State tax commission and the county of Santa Cruz have obtained a decision 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 s1.000,ooo. 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 involved was about $95,o0o.
 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 yet been adjudicated and that the taxes for the years 1915 and 1916
 were void because the property was held in two parts but was assessed as a whole. and for that reason the own-
 CTS 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 1913
 and 1914 they were not taxable. be-
 cause the lands were not segregated
 from the public domain so as to render
 them susceptible to taxation
 It also was held by the court in the
 decision that the statute that requires
 the payment of the taxes as a condi- I.(
 ton for recovery where the taxes ap-
 valid
 l C. NJ. Zander, chairman of the stat.
 tax commission. appeared before thu
 members of the board of supervisors o
 Santa Cruz county and requested tha the case be appealed as to the judg ment for the years 1913 and 19l4. Tn, board of supervisors decided to per feet the appeal.
 With respect to the taxes for thes
 two years the tax commissioners an, , the officials of Santa Cruz county hol, that the land itself was not taxed, bu , that the grant to the land was taxe,
 and therefore subject to taxation be cause the grant had been the subjec of barter and trade for years befor the land itself was definitely segregat : ed from the public domain. and tha anything that is transferable and in b heritable, as this grant certainly wa! ,, is also taxable.
 county of Santa Cruz were Leslie Hard of Nogales and George Harben, assist
 ant attorney general. and for the own CTS of the float. Messrs Kingan an 8 Campbell of Tucson.
 Baca Float No. 3. the subject of thi . long drawn out litigation and which l. expected to bring in a large amount ( = money to the state in back taxes. n one of five units of 500, 900 acr g grant of land to Juan Baca by tn = Mexican government many years az d In the treaty between Mexico and tr t United states all grants of land by tf d Spanish crown and the government }, Mexico were to be recognized by tt - United States.
 o Two Of these grants were in Arizon n which then was part of New Mexic n No. being in Santa Cruz county an e No. 5 in Yavapai county. Previous 0 the selection of the land. the propert 1t right in the grant changed hands se, e eral times. By act of congress in lSt ,t Baca was permitted to make his S, e lection of the land but did not do , y until 1863. In 1864 the land was O, 1T dered surveyed. but this was not a,
 complished until 1905.
 J. Baca Float No. has had a Tor ,s career in court, and it is not yet ende n The interior department at one tin le declined to approve the selection " the land. claiming that it was miner. d After having changed title sever
 times the ownership of the northe lt half is at present in the name of Bail v, and Bouldin and the southern half l. the name of Watts and Davis. IT IS land has grown to be of great value.