The Sun. [volume] (Price, Utah) 1915-1932, 1918-02-08
COURT RULING OF
MUCH INTEREST
LOCALLY
MONTANA JUDGES GO ISTo COAL
LAND TANES.
Only Correct Method OF Assessing In
Carbon County Would he On the
Net Procccds-TcNt OF Provision In
the Two State Absolutely Identical
Many Disputes Vet 20 Come.

ton and the lattera meeting with the
officials Of Carbon and Emery coun-
ties 20 a decision Of the supreme court
IT Montana that may be invoked In
the matter Of assessing and taxation
of coal lands by attorneys for the sew
eral fuel companies should they take
exception 60 methods employed during
the present year In line with the de-
,ision OF the Utah supreme court In
the Carbon county taxes cases Now
comes the Pacific Reporter for Janu-
AIRY 18th. last. containing the Mon
tana decision. which--if the precedent
there established ~ followed In Utah
may have the effect Of knocking the
plans ~ the state administration In
taxing coal lands Of the state into the
proverbiai cooked hat" Indeed. In
the opinion Of some persons familiar
with the taxation situation In Utah.
n the Utah court follows the Montana
court In this Instance. even the rev.
enue az present derived by the state
annually from the coal mines would
be very largely reduced.
The case u that OF the Northern
Pacifi, Railway company against Mus.
Helshell county and others and came
Co the supreme court on appeal from
the lower courts refusal to enjoin the
county treasurer from transferring
rights 10 coal underlying certain prop
ertier. which rights had been sold In
several successive years Tor taxes.
Originally Rallroad Land.
The land was originally railroad
land. IL was sold Co n settler with the
reservation OF all mineral rights TO
the land. and also OF right of way over
an. land to develop those minerals.
The land contains coal The county
assessor held that the railroads rights
In those coaibcdH were valuable. and
therefore placed a valuation on them
The railroad failed To pay taxes on
this valuation, and the tax sales fol-
lowed. Tho Montana supreme court
holds that under the terms Of the
Montana constitution. which " idcn-
ticai IN its wording with section In
the Utah constitution. such mineral
deposits IN the land are not asscsaabic
except as the mineral itself II extract
cd. Tho clause In the constitution re-
ferred To- IN that which provides for
the taxation of the net proceeds OF
mines. This clause. II will be rcmem-
bered. assesses such mining lands at
the price paid Ca the federal govern
ment therefor. the wording being In
part
IAN mlncs aud mining claims. both
PLAYER aud rock la place containing or
hearing Rold, silver. copper. lead. coal
ar other valuable mineral deposits. af-
ter purchase thereof from the United
states. shall h. taxcd nj the price paid
the United States therefor"
The contention of the Utah admin
a. - Al
ticularly Co coal lands. where "A gov.
eminent valuation of all deposits
found II attainahle. IN that where the
lands were obtained from the state ~
lieu selection lands. or where the lands
were obtained from the government
ON other than mineral entry and the
mineral deposits were later made
known or developed. the lands should
be assessed at their actual value. or
az least az the present selling price OF
the government In other words, the
Utah authorities have been going on
the assumption that where such lands
are not purchased from the United
States governments the restrictions OF
the constitution above quoted do not
apply
The Montana court holds otherwise.
In doing 10. II finds II Nee ssary In
part 10 reverse itself with regard TO
"a former decision, but II has no hesi-
tation In doing 30. romarking that it,
change OF mind Ia the result OF further
study OF the subject. The court In It's
decision Just reported goes back to
the constitutional convention itself In
order 90 determine the meaning Of the
clause In question. u says
Court Holds Otherwise.
Previous TO the adoption OF See.
(the title reading identlcaily with
Article XIII. Bee. OF the Utah con-
stitution) there was much diversity OF
opinion among the members Some
OF them advocated the elimination OF
any special provision on the subject
of mines and mining claims, these en-
tertalnlng the opinion that mineral
deposits should be taken Into the esti-
mate as an element OF value. whether
they had been developed or not The
adoption OF this plan would have put
all lands into the same class, Others.
and by far the larger number. advo'
Gated tho adoption OF See. ., upon tho
theory that however rich deposit
might apparently be or was supposed
10 be. the real value was al best a
matter of speculation; that II was
varying and uncertain; that II miEAt
be of great apparent value today and
hy tomorrow no apparent value-this
because of changed conditions found
IN the earth In the pl0cess of develop
ment, and because In lis undeveloped
state no intelligent estimate Of It's
value could be made By the assessing
officer.
while the discussion had special
reference To land acquired under the
laws relating TO mineral lands, Il dis
closed purpose 10 devise method
by WEIGH all property could be made
10 bear it's burden under an ascertain
able value. as well as a definite pur-
pose to avoid leaving the ascertain
ment OF the value OF any OF II 60 spec
uiation which would vary In result as
widely as the individual opinions OF
Judgments OF different assessors and