Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1921-02-21

Il lTbL OEuel VI LNtallotiA t''iN Az
material with that in the majority
report he often finds that there IS
really no disagreement at all In
fact almost everything of import
ance which Mr.. Joerns says al
ready appears in substance In the
large report. If Mr.. Joerns had
desired deliberately to weaken the
majority report I can conceive OF
no better method than that which
he has adopted of continually i'm
putting conflict on points where
none exists.
The statements which 4 have
made can, believe, be clarified
and substantiated by referring to
Mr.. JOerns' discussion OF the ques-
lions of the income tax and the
mines tax. These were two of the
most important problems which
the commission had to consider
They were topics to which my own
attention was mainly devoted. Mr.
Joerns agrees with the main con-
illusions of the majority report with
respect to both. He believes that
mines should be taxed on the basis
of their value as determined by ar
engineering appraisal and he be
lieves that there should be an in
come tax levied at a flat rate lie
us see how he treats these topics II
his report.
The Mines Tax.
First consider his treatment o
the mines tax. Mr.. Joerns towarC
the end of his discussion concur
N the majority recommendation
He urges (page 34) that the stat
employ sufficient experts to max
valuation of all the mineral LAM
within the state of New Mexico
and that such valuations, when de
termined, shall be used as hasi
for assessment of mineral lands b.
the tax commission" This is tn
majority position. Yet in spite o
[ the fact that he ConCurs he feint
, and fences through ten pages o
= discussion until one is at a loss t
know where he is leading His dis
cussion starts out with this inter
esting paragraph (page Pa:
81 do not concur in the state
ment of the majority on mine tax
alton outlined in the general polio
and the sub-head 'SubsidizatiOr
Penalization and Equalization
believe that the present mine ia
law has been little understood b
the public in general. I cannot Sc
where there was intended any sub
sidization in the present mine ia
law"
CamonflaGpd Agreement.
7 submit that this has all the ap
pearance Of material disagree
ment. Tnon analysis, the dis
agreement eyaporates into thin ali
The material to which Mr.. Joern
refers (pages 55-5S of the maiorit
report contains nothing substan
tial with which 1t is possible to dis
agree. It Is a simple statement @
all the possible policies whic
might be adopted with reference t
taxes on mines.
1t is true that the statement
made that the people of New Men
leo want mino taxes equalized wit
those on other industries; that the
prefer this to subsidization or per
alization. Does Mr.. Joerns mea
that he disagrees with this? N
He believes in equalization. Bl
then, what does he mean?
Again when he says that he b.
lieves that "the present mine ia
law has been little understood |
the people in general" I am SUI
that there is no disagreement b.
tween him and the majority. II
deed If the people in general full
understood the present mine Lax
it is scarcely conceivable that
would still be on the statute book
Or does he intend thus delicate
to include the other members I
the commission with people
general"
He brings his paragraph to
close with the remark that he cal
not see "where there was intendt
any subsidization in the prese'
mine-tax law" This seems to So
that he disagrees with the MAORI
who claim, he infers (perhaps u
consciously, that Substitution W
intended. Although the MAORI
report does take the position tn
subsidiation is the practical resi-
of the present law, I am unable
find any discussion of intention
subsidize. Mr.. Joerns himself 7
cognizes that the present law I
suits in subsidization when he sa
that the contiguous proper
clause must be repealed.
More Camouflage,
7 submit that this typical sa,
pie of Mr.. Joerns' report gives t
impression of disagreement whe
none actually exists. Other G
amples follow quickly, Thus 3,
remarks, on the following page 2
THE specific mine tax laws
in several states were in effe
prior to the adoption of the mi
tax law by the legislature of {
state Of New Mexico and thereto
it cannot be said that our prese
mine tax law is the creative thong
of any one in the state of NJ
Mexico" But who claims that it
New Mexico product? Who wal
to say any such thing? Certain
not the majority report, for
specifically points out (page