| OCR Text |
Show Judge Varian Warns Voters Against Mine Tax Plan Proposed Amendment to Constitution Discussed by Lawyer and Member of Consti- tutional Convention. , l.fe By C. S. VAEIAN, Attorney at Law and Member of Utah Constitutional Convention. (Judge C. S. Varian has carefully considered con-sidered the proposed amendment to Section Sec-tion 4, Article 13, of the constitution of the state and warns the voters against Its adoption In a communication to The Tribune, which Is herewith given.) The amendmerit is as follows: "Section 4. All metalliferous mines or mining claims, both placer and rock in place shall be assessed at $5 per acre, and in addition thereto at a value based on some multiple or submultiple of the net annual proceeds thereof. All other mines or mining ' claims and other valuable val-uable mineral - deposits, including lands containing coal or hydrocarbons, shall be assessed at their full value. All machinery ma-chinery used in mining and all property or surface improvements upon or appurtenant ap-purtenant to mines or mining claims, and the value of any surface use made of mlnfng claims, or mining property for other than mining purposes, shall be assessed at full value. ' The state board of equalization shall assess and tax all property herein enumerated, provided that the assessment of $5 per acre and the assessment of the value of any use other than for mining purposes shall be made as provided by law." Existing constitutional and statutory provisions which are to be considered in this connection are as follows: s CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1. Section Sec-tion 1. Inherent and inalienable rights, i All men have the inherent and inalienable inalien-able right to acquire,' possess and protect property. Section 7. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. I ARTICLE VI. Section 26. The legislature legis-lature is prohibited from enacting any private or special laws in the following cases; 8. Assessing and collecting collect-ing taxes. ARTICLE XIir. Section 2. All property prop-erty in this state, not exempt under the laws of the United States, or under this constitution, shall be taxed in proportion propor-tion to its value, to be ascertained as provided by law. The word property as used in this article is hereby declared to Include monies, rrcdits, bonds, stocks, frane'nises and all matters and things , freal, personal and mlxd) capable of private ownership Section 3. The legislature shall provide pro-vide by law a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation on all property prop-erty in the state, and shall prescribe by general law surh. regulations as shall secure se-cure a just valuation for taxation of all property, so t hat every person and eor-poration eor-poration shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or Its property U. S. CONSTITUTION Article . This constitution, and the laws which phall be made in pursuance thereof phall tie the supreme law of th land: and the Judges in every states shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution constitu-tion cr Ih.ws of any state lo the, con-trnrv con-trnrv nit withstanding. V M ' KTKKNTJ T A MKNT'M ENT. Scc-t Scc-t ion 1 . No stnt shall make or pitfonp .uiy law whi'h shall abridge the prl viW'gps or immunities of citizens of the United Stales: imr shall any state deprne any person of lif, liberty, or proport y w ithout due pre-i'M rf law; nor d-ny to any j.rrfon within its jurisdiction juris-diction the equaJ protection of the laws. See t ion 1 oT A rtu U- 13. which it i" proposed to amnnd, directs the tax at ion of the surface gmuud when It has been purchased from the United Stntfs; and. I where it has an independent and separate value for other purposes, requires its taxation at Its valuf for surh othr pur-pnsoi; pur-pnsoi; and. tho taxation of all machinery used In ndnlitir and all property ;md MirfaeA Improvement upon or ;ippurt-n.tnt ;ippurt-n.tnt to ndi.es ami mining ilnims, which h;te a v;ihie HT.'irati anil independent of unh mines and claim.; and. the net annual pro.rd Evlsttnir M.Htutcs ron form to these on-v on-v 1 1 1 ut lon.'il pro isions. with the added rouif,min1 s of a law enacted by the same legislature which protoscd tho amenrmmt to the constitution under iO'iMdrr;ttion. Thl l;iw tinpo55 an additional burden on mines urn minlnc b" an occupation or privilege tax j-'nerally of one dollar and two per centum of the total- net proceeds. . t Meaning of Proposal. It would srcin that th" present law relative to the taxation of mining properly prop-erly was at least fair to the state. Nothing Noth-ing apparently h;n been omitted, tn con-sit con-sit nation or statute, in safeguarding the state in the m.it tcr of ta.xing mining properly. All surface rights and improvements, improve-ments, and the net proceeds, owned or produced by individual or corporation are taxed upon the same valuation and at the same, rate as other property. None of the money rcalhcd In mining, al ter the expense of re a king and bringing the ore .to the surface and then.-e to mill or smelter has beeij deducted, cs-enpes cs-enpes taxation. No allowance is made for perhaps years of preliminary work and the huge sums of money expended lu the searching for ore lu the developing develop-ing of a pa log mine. It would seem, therefore, that as the law Ik. enough is exacted from the miner. Hut il Is now proposed to have the people place in the constitution a permanent assessment of mining property which shall bo unchangeable. unchange-able. The assessor is to be relieved of (he duty of assessing such property, and (ho statrt board of equalization must assess and tax the miners at n value fixed nnd declared by the flat of the constitution. con-stitution. All other property In th state Is to bo nssrssed ami taxed "In proper- i tlnu to its value, to be ascertained us provided by la w." The slat'1 board of eipial t'.a I Ion must assess a nd 1 a x the mine or mining claims, "at a value based on st me mult i pie or submultiple of t he net annual proceeds thereof." A multiple may be defined as a number produced hy multiplying another by a whole number, a nd a sublimit i pie Is a number w litch divides another without a remainder. Of course. I here Is a sn bmult iple for every multiple. Suppose the net proceeds In a given cm so are $ 1 00, nOii. To base t lie value on a snbniultple of this amount might result In an assessment upon a vahatlon not tn xeeed $."(M. To multiply multi-ply t h( sum of $ 00.000. by tho snb-multlple. snb-multlple. would result in not getting anywhere any-where a hove t he act ual net proceeds, so the whole number to be employed' In raising (ho amount for taxation to meet the iewi of tho board of e-nialla t!on would bo n t least two, and may bo an Indefinite number whereby a remit reaching to tho stars Is obtained. The tux for iiny one yea r assessed aga lust a mine showing Jino.noo. net proceeds mav be assessed upon $ I .OMO.onti. or t) greater sum. Any fin I under the forms and sandfly of law. whelher pronounced hv a Irglnlat ut c, or b the people In the form of a constitutional a me ml men t which purpori to ompow cr the ta im officer to no slrllc at prooert v rights Is U n wort hy of a frre people, Cry for Despoliation. The fact that It 1m endorsed by o,ne socialistic educators, or the represents tlve of H great political partv in cup veiillou imsetnbled Is of no con.seuiieiu-e Thelr'n Is bn( n cry for the desi ol i ( t ion of (ho properly of others In nrdor that the bunions of taxation ma be shift. -d to a Hpocl.il class and tulnsN The manifest injustice of n,,, propose,! amend men! should appeal lo all fair minded and particularly to the -Mormon people, who hao always been oh a ri , t ,T l.ed hv their uniform i oco;; n 1 1 ion of ( he properly rlghta of all other, mm.) (heir bo f HI i y (o unfa I r and oppressl o -i Hon linger to pmleet thetn-e'vo'i ar:iin-d spoliation they should bo swilt (,," p,. vent an indefensible act of tyranny and oppression against any taxpayer in the state. This amendment might be adopted by less than a majority of all the electors of tho state, that is, by a majority of those voting at the election. If adopted (if valid) it will not be in accord with other provisions of tho constitution. It will deny to the prescribed class the equal protection of the laws; it will be an act of arbitrary power striking down the property rights of a class only, without with-out due process of law; it will be a special spe-cial law assessing and collecting taxes; . it will prevent the taxation of a certain I class of property Jn proportion to its I value, without notice or a hearing; it will be in opposition to Section 3 of Ar-! Ar-! tlcle 13, providing for a uniform and eo.ua I rate of assessment and taxation on all I property in the slate, and for the just valuation of all property, so that every person and corporation shall pay a tax in proportion to the value of his, her or its property; -it will deny the right of having the valuations of the property of a class of taxpayers adjusted and equalized by the state board of equalization. equaliza-tion. Such conflict with other constitutional constitu-tional guaranties continued in force for the protection of all other citizens and taxpayers can but result eventually in disastrous consequences to the state. Presents a Barrier. Possibly the wrong could -toe righted in the state courts. In any event, it would seem that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would present a barrier to such a spoliation spolia-tion of property by the stale. It is true, as pointed out by the supreme court of the United States, the state may, "if it chooses, exempt certain classes of property prop-erty from any taxation at all, such as churches, libraries and the property of charitable institutions. It may impose different specific taxes upon different trades and professions, and may vary the rates of excise upon various products; it may taxv real estate and personal property prop-erty in a different manner; it may tax visible property only, and not tax securities securi-ties for payment of mdney; ft may allow deductions for indebtedness, or not allow them. All such regulations, and those of like character so long as they proceed within reasonable limits and general usage, axe within the discretion of the state legislature, or the people of the state in framing their constitution. But clear'and hostile discriminations against particular persons and classes, especially such as are of an unusual character, unknown un-known to the practice of our government, might be obnoxious to tne constitutional prohibition." Bell's Gap R'd- Co. vs. Pennsylvania, 134 U. S. 230-23 7. In an earlier case the court had declared de-clared that the fourteenth amendment "undoubtedly Intended not only that there should be no arbitrary deprivation of life or liberty, or arbitrary spoliation of property, but that equal protection and security should be given to all under like circumstances in the enjoyment of th ?Lr personal and civil rights." Barnfer vs. Connolly, U. S. 27-31. U is the settled doctrine of the court that the assessment of a tax is action judicial in its nature, requiring for the legal exertion of the power such opportunity oppor-tunity to appear and be heard as circumstances circum-stances of tlr cae may require: and further, that the supreme court of the United States is the ultima' arbiter of rights ecu red by the federal constitution, constitu-tion, and is charged with toe duly of determining de-termining whether the taxpayer has been a flora ed due process of l.-w; and that due process of law demands notice and opportunity to be h-ard as to whether the property is subject to taxation, and if so. whether the valuations imposed are nondiscriminating ard lawful. Central of (iergia R. R, Co. vs. "Wright, 207 U. S. 127. Supreme Court Quoted. The faet that the ta.xing ?--hPir,e rro-pod, rro-pod, if adopted, will be a paxt of the slate eonstitut'on, ads nothing to its potentiality. As said hy the supreme court" "Rut when the que t Ion Is whether a tax imposed by a Male deprives a party of right" s-Turpd by the federal constitution, consti-tution, the decision is not dependent upon the f rm in which the taxing s-rheme if cast, nor upon the characterization of that soli me as adopt.-d by the state court. We must regard- the su'ostanre. rather than the form, nrd the contrcllinc test Is to bo found in the operation ;mt effect of the law as applied and enforced en-forced by the state. " . St. Txmis S. . K. vs. Arkaras ZX U. S. 22. U must be evident to every open mind, thai i he proposed a me ndment ignores the principles uvm which th-? institutions institu-tions of our government rot. The words "due process of law." a: rniplovcd tn IwMh federal and Mate constitutions, were originally a purt of the Fifth Amendment to tho Constitution of the United States, and com eyed the same meaning a.s "law of tho la nd." t lie words of the great charter of human right s sealed by ohn and th barons nt Runnymcde. " Their meaning nnd effect is. jis -aid bv Mr. Justt.-r. Johnson in delivering the opinion of the court in Hank of Columbia s Pkeiy. 4 he-aton,. 24.N: "As .to the words of Magna Chart incorporated in-corporated Into the constitution of Marv-land. Marv-land. after volumes spoken and written with a view to thrlr exposition, the good sr-nsn of mankind has at Irngih settled down to this; that Ihey were inteinlrd to s-eeure the individual fmni the arbi-tr.:ry arbi-tr.:ry exorcise of the powers of o . rn-ment, rn-ment, tin rest rained In- the ot a Wished Principles of private rights and distributive. distribu-tive. Justice.' Violates Free Government. This amendment violates jilt principles of reprev.-ntnlivo and free government It commits to board, noneleot ive. but appointed bv the governor, the power to tax the citizen upon a valuation arbitrarily arbi-trarily fiNr.,1 i-y Us members, thus ignoring ignor-ing a . fundamental principle that ( 10 people are not to be tax. d but bv repre-' cental Ives chosen mmedi t el v bv themselves. them-selves. And tho tax Is to bo asscNrd at n value based upon a multiple or the actual net proceeds, f,Nrd by the hoard without notice or a brarinp In these partl.Mihu-N it U in con f let with the fourteenth amendment forold-ding forold-ding nny state H deprive anv person of iroperty without due process of law or i to deny nnv person wlihin its 1-n lIlic- (ion (ho equal protection of the 'laws ; Suppose the tchemc included the assessment of the farmer upon his roo bet nro harvrM or upon the product of I the sugar factory at the plant, the valuation valua-tion in each case to be has, d noon ,-cme multiple of (he actual value. i,a( ,,. swvr would the people make' How uvm Mieh fanciful scheme (Htfer hi principle rom thai of the Ptopced amendment" it is submit ton that the voters shoa'd I not dl-honor (hel- state bv adopting thi- j scheme which Is not siipoi t by I I or common sense, nnd w hu h Mrike- it the vrrv life rf one -f the girat l,,,,,,',. ; trier, of the state. 1 |
