Great Falls tribune. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1921-current, 1922-10-22

gu. IOF Tie purpose OF QeteTIliuiuS
the value of this ore or capital re-
turn. a formula adopted by Herbert
| Z. Hoover, mining engineer, and
one Of our most eminent Ameri-
cans, the method being known as
the Hoover Method of Mine Valua-
ton
by this method the federal
authorities determine the amount
of each unit of metal or ton of ore,
and the total each year is deducted
before figuring the net profits of
the operator. In other words, it
is recognized that the proceeds ac-
cruing from mining operations are
in part the result of an exhaustion
of its capital, and due allowance is
made in distinguishing the differ
ence between net proceeds and net
profits in such operations as these
terms are commonly used.
II feel that this distinction is not
generally understood, and it should
be recognized in any action looking
toward the imposing of a license or
occupation tax on mining interests,
or in working out other problems of
mine taxation"
Mineral Production.
But even with his figures of gross
I pLodutllou, tIC SOfCllIOI uOSS uoL HIdht
the comparisons fairly. He uses
claimed figures of gross production for
the years 1918, 1919 and 1920, fails to
| give similar figures for 1921, but still
Iattempts TO compare the alleged amount
of taxes paid by each of the Industries
fer the year 1921 with the percentages
of production for these other years!
Figures compiled by the United
States bureau of crop estimates in CO.
operation with the Montana state de-
partment of agriculture, and figures as
to mineral production, compiled by the
U. S. geological survey for the year
1921, show the gross production of agri-
culture to have been $74,1 900;
900; minerals, S43, 901 900. Thus, of the
gross production of these four indus
tries for that year. agriculture Is shown
to have contributed 1908 per cent; live
stock 1922 per cent; lumber 2.72 per
cent and mineral 1888 per cent.
If the governor had any desire to
be fair in his comparisons, why did he
not take the production for the same
year, 1921, as he took for the tax
payments, or take the tax payments
for the same years, 1918, 1919 and
1920 for which he gave the alleged
production figures?
1t is impossible without going to the
county records in each county, to give
ments. but it is apparent that if the
mining industry is credited with its
Full tax payments, and that of the
other industries not increased above
what they were entitled to, the com
PARSONS would have shown the mining
industry doing at least it's full share
during any or all of these years.
Paid About I6 Per Cent Taxes
In the limited time we have had,
we have been able to get fuller figures
for the year 1917 than any other, and
these show that the taxes paid by
but a few of the large mine operators
in that year were in excess of 1873
per cent of all of the taxes levied in
the state!
In figuring the proportion of taxes
paid by the different industries in the
state, what possible justification was
there in simply taking the production
of the agricultural, livestock. lumber
and mineral industries. and figuring
the taxes paid by them upon a per-
centage of the taxes paid by all tax
PAYERS in the state?
Why were not the public utilities. the
flour mills, sugar factories, the foun-
| uTlpS, the DdIhS. tHt DliNlltNS tuLtI
prises of all kinds. all of which paid
taxes in the state included in the
production figures. and Their the per-
centage of all produced by the mining
industry given? 1t is ridiculous to at
tempt to give the impression. as the
governor did in his various speeches,
that because the mining industry pro-
duced approximately % per cent of the
total amount produced by these four
industries = agricultural. livestock,
lumber and mineral. that it was delin-
duent in its tax duty if it did not pay
the same percentage of all the taxes
uaid in the state not alone by these
four industries, but by all taxable pro-
perry assessed.
Why did the governor not add 10
| his figures of gross production for the
agricultural. livestock, lumber and
mining industries the mani hundreds
of millions of gross production from
the other businesses n industries OF
the state, so as to show the total
production of all industries. which paid
the total 81 odd million dollars in
taxes. and then compare the mining
industries production and tax pay
ments with the total production of all,
and the taxes paid by all?
Attempts to Compare
), Again, the governor for his com
. parison purposes. takes the total
amount levied as property taxes in the
state in 1921, S27. 24S056 bring the
total paid for state county, school
roads, cities. and all other purposes
and compares. or attempts to compare
the amount which he gives as the taxes
paid by the mining industries with this
tremendous total.
Mining operations are carried on in
but comparatively few Of the counties
of the state, and only a very insignifi-
cant portion of these operations are
carried on within the incorporated
limits of any city or town. If the in
dustry is paying a fair proportion OF
the taxes levied within the ;urisdic.
ton where it operates, in other words
is paying for its share of the benefits
which it receives-why should its pay
ments be compared with the amounts
paid by property situated in other
counties, or in cities where presumable
greater benefits are conferred?
The only purpose of such a com
parison, and this was evidently the
governors intent, was to secure the
greatest possible total of tax pay
ments with which TO compare those
paid by the mining industry, and thus
belittle the contributions of that in.
dustry.
Il A fair comparison would be to take