OCR Text |
Show Burance that his own attitude will remain re-main constant? The governor must permit us to review re-view his attitude on this subject when the last legislature was in session. His first message to that body recommended recom-mended the taxation of all mines at their 1 ' actual value. 7 ' His final action ac-tion was to approve the ponding amendment, which is radically different differ-ent from both the plans he had previously pre-viously indorsed. During the legislative t session aud on many occasions since its adjournment he has expressed himself regarding the mining industry with a vehemence which justly raises a question as to his dispassionate consideration of mine taxation. Even his present communication commu-nication is not free from suggestions calculated to arouse prejudice. For example, he associates ''net proceeds71 and "profits'7 several times in such a way as to create the impression that the terms are identical, although the governor well knows that net proceeds, as defined for taxation in Utah, are greatly in excess of profits. He also refers to ' ' non-residents of the state who are realizing immense profits from Utah mines," a statement which, if not intended to create prejudice, can only be construed as evidence that he docs not believe it is desirable to have outside capital invested in this state. And, assuming that the governor remains re-mains in his present announced attitude, atti-tude, that his" plan is ideal, that he is empowered to commit the incoming legislature leg-islature in advance of its election and that some means can be devised to give the legislature jurisdiction (a truly formidable array of assumptions), can the governor 1 allay fears ' ' . as to his successors and future legislatures'? For it must not be forgotten tht the proposed pro-posed amendment, as far as mines are concerned, takes out of the constitution constitu-tion the protection that instrument now gives to the property of Governor Bamberger Bam-berger and every other taxpayer of Utah. With that just protection removed re-moved as to mines, the power of abuse by future officeholders will always exist ex-ist and future officeholders will not be bound by what Governor Bamberger says today. The question js greater than whether certain classes of property pay too much or too little taxes. Such inequalities ine-qualities are susceptible of adjustment, when the facts are disclosed, without depriving any class of property of the constitutional protection given to other classes. The proposed amendment is not a step toward equalisation. On the contrary, as has been previously pointed out, it permits .greater inequalities inequali-ties than can exist under ' the present constitution, as it provides neither maximum nor minimum limitations. The real question is whether property in Utah is to be singled out for taxation taxa-tion without limitation. The Tribune is firmly opposed to such a principle and would condemn it just as vigorously vigor-ously if it affected Governor Bam-' berger 's railroad instead of the mines of the state. The amendment proposes a thoroughly vicious plan of taxation and should bo overwhelmingly defeated. .THE REAL QUESTION. . . v Governor Bamberger's communication on the mine tax amendment, published in The Tribune yesterday, is interesting interest-ing chiefly as iDdicativo of tho governor's gov-ernor's present attitude. on the subject. It is not otherwise important in tho discussion, as the governor presents statements which had already been made repeatedly. Ho contradicts himself him-self on one point by saying that tlrVi present tax levy is high " because the mines have not paid their full sliurc of the taxes" and immediately following that statement with an admission that tho mines arc paying more taxes now than ever before. The governor announces his intention to recommend to tho next legislature that metalliferous mines be taxed on the basis of not to exceed three times theil not proceeds in addition to taxes on their land and improvements. lie says he rnukes this aunounemnonl. to allay fears that the slate administration administra-tion intends to deal unjustly with tho mines. His niinounreiiiont is not at all satisfactory satis-factory or conclusive. In tin, first place, it remains to bo established that the legislature will have anything to do with the matter, the plain language of ihe amendment Itself and tho weight or competent legal opinion being unquftll fiedJy to the effeel thai the matter rests wholly wiih the stale i,,,rir,i of. rquall' itttiffn. But) even though the loglsla lure gisUme1! jurisdi, 1 ion, leiillv or il legally, is the governor able to say, iu ndvatM'e of the eleeljon, that the next. Leglslgture will do precisely as ho do. sires? And will he give Ihe public n.",- |