Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1921-08-12
Equalization Board Takes
Case of Tax on Mineral Rights
Held BY ~ p Under Advisement
Special to The Tribune.

Special to The Tribune.
Helena, Aug. 11-ApparentIy con.
fhctlns decisions of the supreme court
were assailed and the court was claim
/ ed By counsel, to have muddled the sit
/ uation surrounding the matter of as
sessments against the rights to ex-
plore land for minerals when that mat
ter was up before the state board of
/ equalization Thursday afternoon.
The entire afternoon was given over
by the board to the consideration of
TINS matter following the adoption
luesday, OF the motion of Attorney
General Rankin to require toe North
ern Pacific railway to show cause why
It's reservations in connection with
mineral rights should not be assessed
at 50 or higher per acre.
Much of the time was expended in
arguments between counsel and Attor-
ney General Rankin and the board
made no attempt to reach de-
clsion, it being decided to let the mat
ter rest pending the filing of briefs by
counsel and Mr.. Rankin.
nj. 5. Gum, who appeared on behalf
of the Northern Pacific, declared he
did not believe any member of the
board can stultify himself, regardless
of the supreme court decision, by
placing value on something that has
no value"
Valuable Only to Holder.
He and other attorneys put forth
the claim that the right to enter land
which had been sold by the Northern
Pacific, but in which the minerals had
been reserved to the company, had no
value to any other than the holder
of the mineral reservation and there
fore it should not be assessed
He stated that this year the North
ern Pacific had made a voluntary re-
turn of so cents per acre upon this
surface right reservation but that Mus
selshcll county has assessed it at $40
per acre, Fallon at 81 and Rosebud at
$3. He showed that the company had
been paying taxes upon these rights
since 1913, despite the fact that it
held they were not assessable.
Mr.. Gum said the contention of the |
Northern Pacific was that the reserva-
ton of surface rights are not subject |
to taxation, regardless of the decision |
Of the supreme court last year in the
matter of the Northern Pacific against |
Musselshell county, in which it held |
that mineral reservation constituted
a mine and is not subject to taxation,
out that the reservation of right in
he surface constituted property and
hereby subject to taxation.
He insisted, however, that the latter
,hase had not been presented to the
.ourt or argued before it and was
merely voluntary upon the part of the
'ourt.
He said in the case of Musselshell
ounty the assessor is assuming to tax
he minerals by assessing the surface
light or else he is abusing the power
# taxation by assessing the right SO
Ugh as to force the Northern PacificI
o dispose of its rights. He held this
o not be taxable under the constitu-
ion.
Reiinquish Rights.
A. s. McCrary, of the Northern Pa
ific, said that out Of over 100000
cres originally held by the Northern
'acific, it had relinquished it's rights !
, all but about 100000 acres. I,
NJ. 7. Sanders, also Of the Northern II
'acific, called attention to the fact that
, Colorado where minerals were as-I I
essihle, the average assessment on I