Monday,]

JOHNSON-HAWLEY-BANKS-COLLINS-HOVEY-DELONG-HAINES.

66

[July 11.

Mr. JOHNSON. It is an amendment which of wrangling. If this amendment is adopted proposes to add to the section, and consequent- in that form, each succeeding Legislature that ly it takes precedence of a motion to strike out, meets will be divided in opinion on this subalthough it is to be regarded as an amendment. ject. Every miner in the Legislature will inMr. HAWLEY. Does the Chair understand sist that the Constitution intended "net prothat that amendment is properly before the ceeds," and every cow-county" representaConvention? tive will contend that the Constitution meant The CHAIRMAN. The Chair understands" gross proceeds," and the question never can that the amendment of the gentleman from be satisfactorily settled. I think we ought not Humboldt (Mr. Banks) is under consideration. to shrink from our responsibilities, and leave Mr. HAWLEY. I wish to ask a question of them for others to assume, who must of necesthe gentleman from Humboldt, as to his object sity be powerless to settle such questions defiin offering his amendment. I wish to ask him nitely. If this matter is carried into the Legiswhether, under the language of the section lature, the discussion will be continued from providing for the taxation of all real and per- year to year, and no good can grow out of it. sonal property, he thinks the actual value of Now let us come squarely up to our work. If the improvements of mines are to be considered we want to tax gross proceeds, let us say "gross as legitimate subjects of taxation? For in- proceeds," and if we want to tax net proceeds, stance, what I mean by the actual value of the let us say "net proceeds." If gross proceeds improvements is the amount which has been win, let gross proceeds have it; if net proceeds expended in the operations connected with the win, let net proceeds have it. There are hunopening and the arrangement of mines, like the dreds of mines, the gross proceeds of which do Gould & Curry, for example, and other mines, not pay the expense of working the mines. to such an extent that they can be worked. Is That is the experience of any man here who that expenditure to be reckoned as a part of has had any experience in the mines, and if the improvements? In other words, is the ex- you tax the gross proceeds of those mines, or pense for tunneling, timbering, chambering, and even leave it a question of doubt whether or all the other works of a first-class mine, to be not they are to be taxed, so that their owners reckoned as a portion of the value of the im- will fear that result, the people will bury your provements? I wish to know if that is the Constitution out of sight. You may as well view which the gentleman from Humboldt en- tear this instrument up and go home, as to tertains, and if I am satisfied of that-if the dodge this question, and submit the Constituamendment covers that ground-I will not oc- tion to the people in that shape. Now, I repcupy the time of the Convention with any ar- resent a mining constituency, and others here gument in favor of it. represent agricultural constituencies. I say, let us fight this thing out fairly; and if we do not succeed in fighting it out here, then let us go home and fight it out there. I move to amend by inserting the word "net" before the word "proceeds," in the amendment of the gentleman from Humboldt.

Mr. BANKS. I suppose that under this amendment the mines will occupy about the same position here that they do in California, and the improvements thereon will be taxed as other property. My further answer to the gentleman's inquiry is contained in the language of the amendment, that "the proceeds only shall be taxed."

Mr. COLLINS. Gross, or net?

Mr. BANKS. That question of gross and net I propose to leave to the Legislature, and for the reason that gross proceeds do not continue for any considerable length of time after it is found that net proceeds do not exist.

Mr. COLLINS. How are you going to get at the gross proceeds, when the Gould & Curry declares over two hundred and fifty thousand dollars in dividends, and returns its gross proceeds at only seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars? How is that to be determined?

Mr. HOVEY. I think the gentleman is mistaken. I think it has been a little over four millions for the last year.

Mr. DELONG. I suggest to the gentleman from Humboldt to incorporate the word "net" in his amendment.

Mr. BANKS. I prefer not to incorporate that word, if it can be avoided, for the reason that I wish to leave the question, which is a difficult one, to the Legislature.

Mr. DELONG. It will be an unending source

Mr. BANKS. I would prefer very much indeed to have that question left to the decision of the Legislature.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will be compelled to decide that the amendment of the gentleman from Storey (Mr. DeLong) is not in order, as it is an amendment in the third de

gree.

Mr. DELONG. Well, let it come in by general consent, overlooking the point of order. I will ask a suspension of the rules, in order that I may offer that amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. That motion would not be in order.

Mr. HAINES. I had the honor of occupying a seat in the previous Convention, in which this subject was discussed for six or seven days, and we then put in this provision as it now stands, in a form which seemed then, at least, to be generally satisfactory. Now, I find members here from Storey County, who apparently feel called upon to give us four or five hours more of discussion, upon a subject which we have already discussed until it has become absolutely a stench in the nostrils of the people.

Monday.]

DELONG-HAINES-NOURSE-STURTEVANT-FRIZELL-BANKS-FOLSOM.

Now, I assure gentlemen that one thing is certain that unless our taxes can be made uniform and equal, we never can have a State Government in Nevada. That question may as well be settled at once. If our mining prop-i erty has got to go untaxed, for the benefit of the few, then you never can have a State Government.

Mr. DELONG. I desire to ask the gentleman a question, because I want to see whether we can agree or not, and, if possible, come to a conclusion on this question. Would the gentleman vote for leaving out all reference to the mines?

[July 11.

nia-that if you build a mill, or hoisting works upon the mine, it becomes a part of the mine. Mr. DELONG. Until it is removed, it does not recede from it.

Mr. BANKS. I do not think it is liable to that construction, but, at all events, any objection on that score can be avoided by a verbal change, which I will propose here, namely, to strike out the word "mines" from the proposed amendment, so as to read, including mining property:" then this last provision will cover the ground, and I think that will satisfy the Convention.

Mr. FRIZELL. It will satisfy me. Mr. HAINES. The gentleman from Ormsby, Mr. BANKS. I will move that amendment, our President, has a substitute which will satisfy or make it a part of my amendment. me. There is no use of debating this question. Mr. DELONG. I understand that the gentleWe have some influence in this Territory, and man proposes now to offer an amendment to I tell you plainly that my constituents never the language occurring in the middle of the will consent to be taxed for a State Govern- section is that in order?

ment, unless the tax shall be made uniform! The CHAIRMAN. The amendment can only and equal. Your proposition to tax the net be altered or modified if no objection is made. proceeds, if it went to the people, would never | Mr. DELONG. Well, I will withdraw my obbe heard of again on earth. I venture to say, jection. [Laughter.] if we were to adopt such a provision, that there would be found no net proceeds of the mines, if the State should last a thousand years. I am satisfied that my constituents will never submit to anything of the kind, and they have discussed the subject for weeks and months gone by.

Mr. DELONG. That kind of talk is not going to drive me at all, because I could, if I please, retort by saying that the proceedings of the previous Convention to which the gentleman has referred, so stunk in the nostrils of the people that the people voted its action down, and very harmoniously too, there being hardly a dissenting voice.

Mr. NOURSE. I believe the gentleman from Storey proposes to amend, by providing that mines shall be taxed only on their net proceeds. Now, if he will add that farms, and saw-mills, and other property shall be taxed only on their net proceeds, there will be some degree of fairness in his proposition.

Mr. DELONG. And lawyers' offices? Mr. NOURSE. Yes; and lawyers' offices. [Merriment.]

Mr. BANKS. I do not propose, Mr. Chairman, to indulge in any extensive speech on this subject, at this time, nor to inflict any lengthy remarks upon this Convention in regard to my amendment. I have made this modification of my amendment, suggested by the gentleman from Storey on my right, (Mr. Frizell,) because it seems to me to make more clear what I intended to express.

Mr. STURTEVANT. In order to understand the question before the Convention, I would like to ask a question.

Mr. FOLSOM. I believe the amendment is in such a shape now, that it proposes to tax mining property only. Is that the case?

Mr. BANKS. Yes, sir; as other property is taxed.

Mr. FOLSOM. Then I would ask, would not mining property be taxed as other property is taxed, any way, under a general law, without any necessity for a provision of this kind?

Mr. BANKS. In reply to that I wish to say, that not only in California, but in this Constitution framed by the former Convention, which we have adopted as our basis, there has always Mr. STURTEVANT. Now, this is where the been a distinction made between mines and railroad comes in, full bulge. [Laughter.] I mining property. I propose to preserve that think I can hear the whistle tooting now. And distinction, because I consider it a legitimate here is the opportunity for gentlemen to show and proper distinction. Mining property is their generosity. If they have any generosity, considered to embrace all the improvements on the gentlemen from the "cow counties" would mines, and that is included with and taxed as like to see it just about this time. [Laughter.] other property is taxed. Mills, hoisting houses, The several amendments which had been of and all the other property connected with mining fered were again read, and also the section as operations, which is distinct from the mine itit would read when amended as proposed. self, have been taxed as mining property, but the mines themselves have never been taxed. That is a distinction which I consider a very reasonable one, and it has been kept clearly in view by these words, “including mines and mining property." If the members of the former Convention had not clearly recognized that distinction they would not have used the

Mr. FRIZELL. The question arises in my own mind, if in the taxation of the mines only the proceeds are to be taxed, whether or not that will include mining property? The Supreme Court may decide that the mines include the hoisting works over the mine and I believe it has already been so decided in Califor

two sets of words, but would have said "mining property " alone, or "mines" alone. So much upon that point.

[July 11.

recent law of Congress, will be obtained from this source. There will be really no more difficulty in determining the proceeds of a mine, whether net or gross, and certainly not in determining the gross proceeds of a mine, than in determining what amount of license should be levied upon a merchant, when all such licenses depend upon the amount of monthly or quarterly sales. Now upon the same principle, and in something like the same mode, the monthly or quarterly proceeds of mines can be determined with facility.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. Chairman: A gentleman familiar with the subject which is about to agitate this Convention-for I conceive that this discussion has but just commenced--has declared that the mines are the nigger" of this coast; that they are the "noli me tangere" of the body politic; that they cannot be touched, whether for good or for ill; and that they must be left in that anomalous position, which, in comparison with every other description of property, they have occupied on this coast, ever since the first discovery of the gold fields of California.

Now, I claim that there should be a distinction made, in regard to taxation, between the two classes of property-if you can designate mines as property-for this reason: Property, as found in real estate-in farms, fences, town lots, and buildings-is essentially and inherently different from that kind of property which is designated under the head of mines. Let us choose an illustration, familiar to all, of the principle I have advanced. Suppose that you, Mr. Chairman, were to invest ten thousand dollars in a farm, while I at the same time invest ten thousand dollars in a mine. Now, in the ordinary course of a legitimate transaction, if you expend ten thousand dollars in addition to the amount originally paid, your farm will be worth twenty thousand dollars. It is true, the proceeds may fail for one or two years, or more, but still your property retains an inherent value, at which it may be appraised, and of which it cannot be divested by the failure of crops for one, or two, or even more years. To be sure your house or your barns may be burned down, or your fences destroyed, but these are things which may be guarded against. By means of insurance they or their value may be placed, in a considerable degree, at least, beyond the reach of danger. But how is it with my mine? If the same rule applied, my mine should be worth twenty thousand dollars also. But we find that the rule which applies in your case does not operate in regard to my mine, because we find that in a great number, if not in an absolute majority of instances of that kind, the expenditure has not really added to the value of the property, but, on the contrary, has demonstrated the fact that it is nearly if not entirely worthless. Now, sir, I claim that that shows a marked difference between these classes of property-a difference which we ought to recognize. One kind of property has an absolute, inherent value, while the other, instead of an inherent value, has only the chance of finding something of value, to constitute its valua- The emigrant who comes into our valleys, or able characteristic. That is all that can be settles upon our hill-sides, building his cabin claimed of any undeveloped mine within the worth perhaps fifty dollars, is visited by the Asborders of this Territory. It has no value ex-sessor when he makes his round. The poor emicept that kind of value which is connected with a lottery, to wit: the chance of obtaining something of value.

A very serious objection to classing these two interests together the mining interest and the other property interests-in regard to securing a revenue from them, is this: that it is next to impossible to place anything like a proper value upon a mine. But you can by proper legistion secure the placing upon the statute-books of the State of such laws as will enable the State to obtain from the proceeds of the mines, gross or net, as the Legislature may choose to determine, a revenue which will be very considerable in amount. I do not suppose that there is any doubt that the Federal tax, under the

Now, sir, while this statement of the case may seem plausible to some, I conceive that it is entitled to no weight in this Convention. I conceive that our duty in the premises lies in the determination of the question, whether or not that element of our country's wealth, which has elevated so many men from penniless circumstances to princely incomes, shall be made to pay its proper share towards the support of that Government which we are about to inaugurate. The manner in which the public lands have hitherto been held in the State of California, and in which they are still held, both in California and Nevada-at least a large proportion. not only of the arable, but other lands in this Territory-has been such, or the tenure of the occupants of these lands has been and is such, that, as a general thing, the occupant has been compelled, whether willing or unwilling, to pay his taxes upon the possessory right of occupation.

grant is questioned, and not only that cabin which has cost him fifty dollars and which barely serves to shelter him and his family from the blasts of winter is taxed, but also his possessory right to the few acres of sterile land from which he ekes out his scanty existence. Now, on the other hand, the question before us is, whether or not the mines, those lands in our Territory which have raised men to princely fortunes, shall be taxed. I maintain that there is no justice in exempting them from taxation. And while I believe, for my own part, that any Court of competent jurisdiction would set aside a judgment assessing a tax upon a mine, as such, still I believe that the possessory right to that mine, and the advantages, pecu

Monday,]

DELONG-HAWLEY-FITCH-NOURSE.

niary and otherwise, which that right gives to the possessor, is as legitimately a subject of taxation as the miserable cabin I have alluded to, or the few barren acres held and tilled by the man who owns and occupies it.

[July 11.

mines; as the expenses of the Government for the protection of the mining interest will be greater than for all the other property in the State, I can see no good reason why the mines should not bear a just proportion of the public expenses. Yet, on the other hand, I really cannot see any good reason why the mines should be taxed upon their gross proceeds, because if you nately, you tax a mine from which it costs nearly its full value to extract the precious metals, just as much as you would tax one from which the gold and silver may be extracted for one-tenth of its value. I believe Mr. HAWLEY. I will say in reply to the that the only proper basis, after all, is, to tax gentleman, notwithstanding this amendment mines upon their market value. If a mine is now before the Convention is still persisted in, worth a thousand dollars per foot, if a man that while the proposition he now makes in owning in such a mine can take that amount some degree does away with the objections for it in the market, and get it in gold coin which I have felt compelled to urge, in the any time he pleases, I do not know that there position which I occupy as a representative of is any good reason why it should be taxed for one of the "cow counties," although I must any less amount than it would be if it were be permitted to suggest that it does not meet a ranch worth a thousand dollars per acre. with my entire approval, yet if he, as he is the Yet, believing this, holding these views of author of this amendment, is disposed to meet the matter, I nevertheless hope that my friends me on half way ground, he will not find me from the "cow counties" will consider the pebackward. And inasmuch as the gentleman culiar circumstances by which we are at present professes to be willing to make a compromise, surrounded. It must be remembered that we I suggest that this pending amendment be tem- have to submit this Constitution to the people; porarily withdrawn, and the amendment which to a people imbued with strong prejudices; to he wishes to offer proposed to the Convention. a people whose passions may be aroused very [Mr. WARWICK in the Chair.]

Mr. DELONG. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him a question? Will he consent to the passage of this section after striking out the words, "including mines and mining prop-levy a tax upon the gross proceeds indiscrimierty," leaving it so as to provide simply, that all property, both real and personal, shall be taxed? I desire to ascertain whether or not we can come together and agree upon something which will be satisfactory to all.

Mr. DELONG. I suggest, then, that we vote down the amendment proposed by the gentleman from Humboldt, (Mr. Banks), in order that we may get this amendment in.

Mr. HAWLEY. I do not know that we can vote it down.

easily on the subject of taxing the mines. If we provide for levying an indiscriminate tax upon mining property, men will go before the miners throughout the Territory and tell them that our Constitution taxes the mines, and imposes upon them a burden which they cannot bear, and which will be destructive to their interests; and in that way they will succeed in defeating the Constitution. Now I respectfully submit to my friends from the agricultural counties, and to the whole Convention, whether, if you strike out the words, "including mines and mining property," you do not leave the provision just as strong, for all practical purposes, as in the shape in which it now stands. It says:

"The Legislature shall provide by law for a uniform and equal rate of assessment and taxation, and shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property." Why not let it stop there? I ask if it does not already include mines and mining property, without putting in the words "mines and mining property?" If it does not, then I do not understand the English language.

Mr. FITCH. I desire to say a few words to the Convention, and particularly to the "cow County representatives, upon this question. I occupy, in this respect, somewhat of an anomalous position. I represent a mining constituency, a constituency, a majority of whom I believe to be opposed to any taxation of the mines, and yet I am in favor of mining taxation, and such has been my position from the first. I have publicly advocated that policy, both with my voice and pen; and although my views have been perfectly well known on that question, yet my constituents have seen fit to send me here. Like the gentleman from Douglas, I can see no good reason why the mines should be exempted from bearing a just share of the public burdens. I cannot see any reason why mines possessing a definite market value should not pay for the support of the Government, just the same as a ranch or any other species of property. I conceive, furthermore, that the greatest expenses of our State Government will be incurred necessarily in its judicial department, and as the time of by law." Courts in this State (as I hope it soon will be) will be occupied, to a very great extent, in trying mining suits; as three-fourths of the litigation of the State will be on the subject of

Mr. NOURSE. I see that the Constitution of California provides as follows:

"Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. All property in this State shall be taxed in proportion to its value, to be ascertained as directed

Now I have been told-I do not know that it is so-that in California, under that provision, the mines are not taxed.

Mr. FITCH. I do not know that there has

Monday,]

NOURSE-FITCH-DELONG-HAINES.

[July 11.

been a decision on that subject; I think there | tion had stricken them out, therefore it may be

has not.

Mr. NOURSE. What is the practice, then, in regard to taxing the mines?

Mr. FITCH. It is to tax the dust wherever they find it. But here our mining is differently conducted. We have our quartz ledges, which are fixed and well defined, while in California, as a general thing, the mines have no such definite market value.

claimed and used as an argument-with what effect we do not know-that this Convention did not intend to include mines and mining property. Now an amendment has been shown to me which satisfies me perfectly. and I hope an opportunity may be given for its introduction and consideration.

Mr. FITCH. Mr. Chairman

Mr. HAINES. Will the gentleman excuse Mr. DELONG. I will state, that in California me if I interrupt him one moment. If I could they tax the proceeds, where there are ledges, be satisfied that the mines would be regarded and they can get at them, and the property as property, I would be satisfied with the also. amendment just proposed, to strike out the

Mr. FITCH. The mines there have seldom words "mines and mining property;" but as an any fixed, definite, easily-ascertained market old Californian, who has seen the workings of value-merely a hill or a tunnel, or a placer the California Constitution for the last thirteen claim, rich perhaps to-day, and poor to-mor- years, I am by no means satisfied on that point. row-but here we have our silver-bearing I know what has been the invariable construcquartz ledges, which have a definite, fixed mar- tion there, and that there has never been a dolket value, just as certain as the market value lar received for taxes from the mines, in any of a ranch, or any other piece of property. shape, except for taxes on bullion, dust, and We know that certain strata of quartz produces the materials used in working the mines. I so many hundred tons of ore, which will aver- believe that the gentleman from Storey, (Mr. age so much per ton, and we can see the results. DeLong), will remember that that is the case: A man claims to own a certain definite and I believe, also, that all the members of this fixed proportion of a mine, and it bears a cer- Convention are aware of it. It is generally tain definite and fixed value, like other prop-understood that no mining property in Califorerty. A change in the system of mining, un- nia is taxed, notwithstanding that the Constituknown until now in the history of our country, tion of California says: "All property shall be has taken place. Corporations have taken the taxed equally." I do not think, as has been place of individual and unincorporated effort. said, that a case ever came before the Supreme Mining stocks are issued, and those stocks have Court of California involving the question, but a market value. Therefore, I say, that the I know, however, that it is generally the opinpiece of paper which entitles the holder to so ion throughout the State that the mines are not many feet in the Gould and Curry Mine, or any taxable property. other mine which has a fixed and definite market value, should be taxed to the extent of that value. And I maintain that under a proper construction of our Constitution, (and we have no right to anticipate an improper construction by our Courts), when we say that property of all kinds shall be taxed-"all property, both real and personal,"-mining property will not escape. We necessarily and by implication, include mining property, and stock in the companies owning the mines. Now I will submit the question to my friend from Washoe, (Mr. Nourse), supposing that we should strike out "mines and mining property "— words which I consider as mere surplusage, adding no vigor or force to the section-and supposing that the first State Legislature should provide for the taxing of mines by law, whether such a law would not be held constitutional?

Mr. FITCH. All of which is true. I will, however, explain my position in a moment. Suppose the first State Legislature, in passing a revenue law, should fail to provide for the taxation of the mines, what would be the result? Some person owning a sufficient amount of taxable property to make it for his interest to test the question, will test it, and carry his case to the Supreme Court. I ask you, sir, and every lawyer here, if it would be possible for the Supreme Court to decide anything else than that a revenue law which exempted a large and valuable class of property from taxation was unconstitutional, under such a clause as this, providing for a uniform and equal rate of taxation of all property, both real and personal? It seems to me clearly impossible that they should decide otherwise. As the gentleman from Douglas (Mr. Haines) has said, Mr. NOURSE. I appreciate fully the gentle- the question never was tried in California, and man's position. I desire as much as any one if it should be, this difficulty would occur, to avoid unnecessary debate, and I will tell the that there has been as yet no definite, certain, gentleman now the reason why many of us are fixed market value attached to the gold mines. unwilling to leave the section as it is, merely Mr. HAINES. Will the gentleman permit striking out these words, "mines and mining me to correct him. They have in California property." It is simply this: that we fear, quartz mines, copper mines, and other mines, whether rightly or wrongly, that a certain some of which, certainly, have a definite cash argument may be successfully used in the value.

Courts that because the former Convention Mr. FITCH. Then I venture to say that any had put in those words and this Conven- man who chooses to carry the question up to