Saturday,] BROSNAN-NOURSE. [July 16. is any indication as to his sentiments upon the " possessions and possessory claims.” And why? Because simply that it has been openly declared here, that there are certain rights which it is admitted men hold, and for which other men are willing to pay money, that are not included by the term "property." The gentleman from Storey (Mr. DeLong) remarked, not on the floor, but in conversation, in regard to the Whitman claim in Como, I recollect, that a gentleman had paid a hundred dollars a foot for it, and yet the gentleman from Storey insists here that it is not property according to his definition of property. He has given us elaborately his definition of property, and it is evident that it is his opinion as a lawyer-and he Mr. BROSNAN. I will say in reply to the gentleman, that my action here to-day was somewhat different from what it was yesterday. I voted yesterday for the gentleman's proposition, with the view of having the subject reconciled. I saw that great commotion was about to take place, one which I should deplore, because I thought it would not be conducive to the honor and the future reputation is a lawyer of great reputation--that these minof the Convention. I wished the subject determined here to-day in a manner to give entire satisfaction to the members of this body, and I had expressed myself in favor of the proposition of the gentleman from Lyon, immediately after the adjournment. It seems now that there was a meeting of gentlemen, after the adjournment last evening, who agreed upon a proposition to be submitted to the Convention which they thought would be satisfactory. I did not have part or parcel in that caucus; I was not there at all. And when the gentleman used the terms he did this morning, my vote having been slightly different from what it was yesterday, upon the question as then presented to the Convention, his remarks, as I supposed, necessarily involved my action, and I could not sit here patiently under the imputation which I thought was cast upon me. If the gentleman has no reference to me, and I believe that he has not, since he disavows it, I am sorry I used the words I did use, and, therefore, I cheeerfully withdraw those remarks. I have deemed this explanation due to the other members, who stand with me in the Convention on this question. ing claims will not and cannot be taxed unless we provide for the taxation of possessions and possessory rights. Then if mining claims are not liable to be taxed, under that clause, I insist, and I do not think any gentleman will pretend to the contrary, that it must follow that possessory surface claims cannot be taxed either, because if in the case of the mines they are the property of the United States, and the property of the United States cannot be taxed, then the fact certainly is the same with regard to all other possessory claims upon the lands of the United States. If therefore we merely provide for the taxation of "property" we shall have but a very small basis for taxation in the State. If this be so, if as able a lawyer as the gentleman from Storey is of opinion that the word "property" does not include that which we call "feet" that it does not include our mining claims, and so on, and therefore they cannot be taxed under such a provision-then, I repeat, that under the same provision surface rights cannot be taxed, except where the fee has passed, as it has in the case of a few ranches up and down our valleys here, from the United States to the occupants. I say that leaves, as Mr. NOURSE. I am obliged to the gentle- the only taxable property in the State, what man. I feel, however, that I am very unfor- little land there may be very probably not tunate, in some way or other, and I confess more than three or four millions worth in all-of that I am not in a frame of mind to say what I which the fee has passed from the Government would like to say, and will therefore defer it. to the individual holders. Therefore it is that I do not know why it is, but it seems that I can- the words "possessions and possessory rights" not speak here without some gentleman sup- have been incorporated; and that phrase covers, posing that I intend some imputation. I wish as the gentleman from Storey (Mr. DeLong) adgentlemen to understand that I do not ever in- mits, all these rights of possession which the tend to cast any personal imputation upon any State courts recognize as existing in the indigentleman on this floor. Will gentlemen under-vidual-rights to the possession of property of stand that once for all, when I assure them of the fact? I do not like to be dragged before the public in this way. which the fee is owned by the Government. Do we not want to cover that? Do we not want at least to cover the surface claims? Of fourNow I wish to say in regard to this amend- teen millions of dollars-I think that is the ment, that if there be any justice in exempting figure-of real estate in Virginia, as now asthe mining interest, there is the same justice in sessed under the Territorial law, not a dollar of exempting the milling interest; and if there is it all is owned in fee. The "property" is in any justice in exempting the milling interest, the United States, and all that the owners have there is the same justice in exempting the farm- is the mere right to the possession. That right ing interest. The proposition as now adopted, is recognized in the courts as between man and first provides that the property of the State man. It is regarded as presumptive evidence of shall be assessed and taxed at a uniform and a grant from the United States. Now we all equal rate. It then goes on and adds the words want to include that property. All thegentle men here who are so earnest against taxing the mines still go in for taxing that property. But I contend that those words "possessions and possessory rights cover that property, and it does no more, if we accept the definition of the gentleman from Storey, and other gentlemen here, of the law; but it leaves the question beyond a doubt that that property must be taxed. Now then if it is right to tax these possessory rights to surface property, why is it not equally right to tax possessory rights to mining property? [July 16. as the saying is, I suppose he is entitled to use his friends' names, and in that way perhaps he can hold a thousand feet. Now, I say, suppose a man goes on to this ledge, and finds it surpassingly rich, but just at present he does not see fit to develop it. Still he is protected in his possession. Mr. EARL. Mr. President, the debate is taking a very wide range, and all this ground has been traveled over again and again. I dislike very much to make a point of order, but I will suggest to the gentleman from Washoe that the time is getting very short. Mr. NOURSE. I will not take five minutes argue the matter for the sake of manifesting What are these mining rights? Gentlemen have talked and talked about a tunnel, in which has been sunk so many thousands of dollars, longer. ["Leave! leave!"] I do not wish to and from which its owners have not yet obtained any ore, and it is uncertain whether they will ever get any, and therefore they say we ought not to tax that tunnel, and all that sort of thing. That may all be true, but such a tunnel as that could not be taxed, under the wording of the amendment, as property. But what the prospector has by virtue of his possession, and which the Government has not, is the mere right of possession to the tunnel. If I understand itand I have not been here as long as some other gentlemen, and have had nothing to do with mining before the prospector goes on to run his tunnel, or to do other work, he stakes off his claim, and by the laws of the mining neighborhood or district in which it is situated he is allowed a monopoly of that ledge thus staked off, while he is prospecting and working it. If he keeps up the amount of work upon it required by those laws or regulations adopted by the miners of his district, he has a monopoly of that ledge. Is not that so? Now that monopoly is what is taxed under those words "possessory rights and claims." It is not his tunnel. He may sink fifty or a hundred thousand dollars in his tunnel, if he pleases, and not be taxed a dollar upon it. But here is a right which our courts protect him in the enjoyment of the right to the monopoly of that ledge. He thinks that right is valuable, or if he did not he would not touch it, of course. Now if the right to that monoply, and that protection by the Government which keeps everybody else away, and prevents them from touching that ledge, until he shall have concluded to abandon it, is worth five dollars, or worth ten dollars, or worth a thousand, or a hundred thousand dollars, and will sell in the market for cash for that sum, ought it not to be taxed, like any other property? And is it necessary that there should be any proceeds from that claim before it can be taxed? Suppose that out in Lander County, which is so ably represented here by the gentleman (Mr. Warwick) who spoke this morning, a man has a ledge which promises to be wonderfully rich. At present he does not think it worth while to work it, but he and his associates may decide to hold on to it. I do not know how many feet a man can hold, but I believe he can work it around whip the devil around the stump," Mr. NOURSE. Now such a man, we will suppose, has a ledge which he can sell in the market for a large sum of money. People are so well convinced of its value that perhaps men would be readily found who would give him half a million for it, and he could sell it at any moment he pleased. Yet he is comfortably off, and is disinclined to sell. He knows that a railroad will be built ultimately, or that something else will come about which will make it more advantageous to him to hold on to his ledge for five years, or a dozen years, and therefore he does not care to undertake the development of the mine at present. I say is it not right, if he does not choose to get any proceeds which can be taxed from that claim, or, even without referring to the proceeds at all, is it not right that he should pay his proportion of the public burdens, on that valuable privilege, or that possessory right which the Government secures to him? And would it not be a gross inequality to allow a man to hold on to such a claim, only doing nominal work upon it, and so monopolizing it, and all its advantages, without any taxation, because he does not choose to get out his millions of dollars from his claim, as the Gould & Curry does, and thereby enrich the State, but prefers rather to hold on to it for years? Is it not right that his privilege and possessory right, secured to him exclusively and entirely, by the laws of the State, should pay a tax, just as other property does, all over the State, without any reference to the proceeds which he gets or does not get? Mr. FITCH. I have but a few words to say, and shall not occupy the time of the Convention five minutes. When I came to this Convention, I occupied, upon this question of mining taxation, something of an anomalous position. Being a representative of a mining constituency, I was nevertheless then, as I am now, in favor of the taxation of the mines. I favored the amendment offered by my colleague from Storey (Mr. Tozer,) which proposed to strike Saturday,] FITCH-DELONG. [July 16. out the words, "including mines and mining prefer, being carried through and adopted, property," and in so doing did not consider as a condition precedent to my support of that I abandoned my position as a friend of any Constitution which we may frame. I am mining taxation, because I believed then, as I here rather in a spirit of compromise, and believe now, that with the section as it would a sincere desire to meet the wishes of the mathen stand, requiring property of all kinds, real jority, so far as it is possible. So, acting in and personal, to be taxed, the mines must the spirit of a sincere desire to frame such a necessarily be taxed, and that no Legislature fundamental law as will be acceptable to this could fail to tax them. Such was my under- people, I am responsible to my God and to my standing of that language, and although it is constituents alone for my action, and shall pertrue that one or two gentlemen, occupying high mit no man to impugn my motives unchallenged. positions at the bar, have differed with me as to I shall permit no man, in a spirit of captiousness, the construction of that language, yet there are or in a spirit of constitutional scoldishness-if I others of equally high standing who believe that may be permitted to coin a word-to load me my construction was correct. The language with reproaches, to read me lectures for my acwas sufficient to satisfy my own mind at least, tion here, to impute motives that do not belong and I did not think that, while favoring the to me, or to denounce me as inconsistent or retaxation of the mines, and yet favoring the creant in my action, when such action is based proposition of my colleague to strike out the upon the bed-rock proposition of framing a words "including mines and mining property," Constitution which will be acceptable to the I was at all inconsistent. people. I should think myself possessed of a spirit of most arrogant self-conceit, instead of a spirit of devotion to principle, if I should attempt in that way to arraign gentlemen for a departure from principle, simply because they differ from me. Sometimes, I conceive, gentlemen are apt to mistake their own individual opinions for principle. I start out here upon the basis of framing a Constitution which will be acceptable to the people, and in so doing, favor my own views so far as possible, while conceding my own views as far as may be, without any sacrifice of principle, to the views of other gentlemen; and I do not think it is either courteous, or even to my mind, parliamentarily decent, to read lectures to others upon their duties and responsibilities, when they are responsible to no one but their constituents. I shall permit no man to do it to me, sir. Again, an amendment was offered here by the gentleman from Washoe (Mr. Nourse) to include in the section the words "possessions and possessory rights." I voted for that amendment, because it was more satisfactory to the delegates from the agricultural counties, the obnoxious words" including mines and mining property" having been been stricken out, and because, in my judgment, it did not make the question of mining taxation either stronger or weaker. I believe that the first amendment would have been sufficient. But since then another amendment or proposition introduced by the gentleman from Lyon, (Mr. Kennedy), and now pending before us, has been brought forward, which proposition (with some slight verbal amendments that I shall take the liberty to suggest,) will receive my support, and for this reason I came here to aid in securing the formation, in the first place, of as good a fundamental law as it was possible for this Convention to construct; and after that, so far as it might be in my power, to aid in shaping the action of the Convention in such a way as to secure the adoption of that fundamental law, because if we make a Constitution exactly according to the views of certain gentlemen, it may prove to be obnoxious to the people and be therefore voted down, and so our labors will be destroyed. Now I conceive the duty of the members of this Convention to be-first, to make a Constitution as perfect as possible, and secondly, to make it as much in consonance with the views of the majority of the people of this Territory as possible, and then to try to secure the adoption of that Constitution. Laying this down as the base upon which to shape my action, at leastnot being willing to abandon any important principle merely for expediency-I yet do not think I am justly liable to the charge of inconsistency merely because I am not afflicted with that mulish obstinacy which would lead me to insist on my individual ideas, and the particular language which I might individually Now in regard to this amendment of the gentleman from Lyon-it says that the Legislature shall provide for a uniform and equal valuation for taxation of all property, real, personal and possessory, excepting mines and mining claims, the proceeds of which alone shall be subject to taxation. I may be in error, but I think a construction could be placed on that language-perhaps a very nice construction— which should say that all mines and mining claims may be exempted from taxation, and the Legislature can tax the proceeds if it please. I will submit to the mover whether it would not read better to say: "As shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real, personal, and possessory; provided, that the proceeds of mines alone shall be subject to taxation." Mr. DELONG. Why, that is the same thing. Mr. FITCH. I think there is a material difference. After the word possessory, you say here, "excepting mines and mining claims," and in that way you leave the door open to that construction. Mr. DELONG. I suggest that we change the language around, and let it read: "except that the proceeds of mines and mining claims alone Saturday,] NOURSE-PRESIDENT-FITCH-DELONG-KENNEDY-HOVEY. [July 16. shall be subject to taxation." That would ex-idea? It will then read-" excepting mines and cept all mining claims which are without pro- mining claims, the proceeds of which alone ceeds. shall be taxed." Mr. NOURSE. I rise to a point of order. The question is on the amendment to the amendment offered by myself. I have no objection, at a proper time, to a further amendment, but the question is now upon my amendment. The PRESIDENT. The Chair did not understand the gentleman from Storey (Mr. Fitch) to offer an amendment. Mr. FITCH. No, sir; but merely a criticism on the language. I say, where it says "for the taxation of all property, real, personal, and possessory, excepting mines and mining claims, the proceeds alone of which shall be taxed"The PRESIDENT. It says here-"shall be subject to taxation." Mr. FITCH. Well, "subject to taxation." I say the Legislature, and the Courts, in my judgment, might place a construction upon that language, which would not only exempt mines and mining claims, but the proceeds also. Mr. DELONG, [in his seat.] When it says that the proceeds of mines shall be subject to taxation, does the gentleman think that they could exclude those proceeds? The PRESIDENT. The Chair hopes that gentlemen will not interrupt, unless in a parliamentary way, by rising and addressing the Convention. Mr. FITCH. I will endeavor to make my meaning clearer, for either the language of the amendment is rather obscure, or else I am uncommonly stupid this morning. Where it says the Legislature "shall prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of all property, real, personal, and possessory, excepting mines and mining claims," that would have meant, if nothing followed it, that the Legislature shall not prescribe such regulations as shall secure a just valuation for taxation of mines and mining claims; and when you add to that "the proceeds of which alone shall be subject to taxation," I understand that a construction could be placed upon it which would allow the Legislature to tax the proceeds, if they choose so to do, and if they did not, to allow them to exempt even the proceeds. It seems to me that under the language of the section, as it now reads, they could exempt the proceeds of the mines. Now, as that is probably not the object of the gentleman from Lyon, as the amendment is offered in a spirit of compromise, as it is designed to secure the taxation of the proceeds of the mines, and not the mines themselves, I suggest, although not in the shape of an amendment, at present, that the object could be achieved by the mover making a slight change in the language. I am not particular as to the language. Mr. KENNEDY. Will not this suit the gentleman? Instead of "subject to taxation," at the end of the clause, let it read "shall be taxed." Will not that cover the gentleman's Mr. FITCH. I rather think, on a cursory view of the matter, that that would be sufficient. Mr. DELONG. We have but an hour of time. Under the resolution we have adopted we must adjourn at twelve o'clock, and I suggest that we should come to a vote. Mr. FITCH. I have occupied but an infinitessimal portion of time compared with my colleague. Mr. DELONG. I did not call my colleague to order; but this is an important question, and members are desirous of going home. The Convention must adjourn in an hour from now. Mr. FITCH. I have nearly finished what I was about to say. It says here--" for the taxation of all property, real, personal, and possessory, excepting mines and mining claims, the proceeds of which alone shall be subject to taxation." It seems to me that the change suggested by the gentleman from Lyon would meet the objection made. Mr. HOVEY. Having been charged outside with inconsistency, I wish to be placed fairly and squarely on the record upon this question. The PRESIDENT. Does the gentleman rise to a question of privilege? Mr. HOVEY. Yes, sir; partly to a question of privilege. I am in favor of taxing the mines, but I am not in favor of prescribing in the Constitution the mode by which that shall be done. Two years ago I was in favor of taxing the gross proceeds, and by request of the Committee on Ways and Means of the Legislature I drafted a law to that effect, but having made one assessment under that law I became satisfied it would not meet the wants of the people. It did not bear equally on all. The gross proceeds, under that law, in the county of Storey, amounted to about four and a half millions of dollars, while the amount of bullion shipped from the county, in the same year, was about twelve millions, I believe. The Legislature at its last session also became convinced that the law would not meet the wants of the Government, and they changed it so as to tax mines like other property. Now, sir, in making the assessment under that law we found that owing to the depreciation of the mines it worked unjustly. For instance, the Burning Moscow, less than six months ago, was worth three hundred and eighty dollars a foot, while to-day it is worth but fifteen dollars. I have come to the opinion finally, after seeing a synopsis of the law passed by the late Congress, that we have got to come down at last to one mode of taxing the mines, and that is to tax the bullion, under the stamp of the Government. And as my views are different from those of the balance of this Convention, I have to go for the next best proposition, and that is, I conceive, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Lyon, (Mr. Kennedy.) Mr. TAGLIABUE and others demanded the Saturday,] HAWLEY-KENNEDY-PRESIDENT STURTEVANT-CHAPIN-Nourse. yeas and nays on the amendment offered by Mr. Nourse, to insert the words "farms and farming property, mills and milling property." Mr. HAWLEY. I shall certainly vote against any such absurd proposition. The question was taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Nourse's amendment, and the vote wasyeas, 3; nays, 30-as follows: Yeas-Messrs. Crawford, Lockwood, and Nourse-3. Nays-Messrs. Ball, Banks, Belden, Brady, Brosnan, Chapin, Collins, Crosman, DeLong, Dunne, Earl, Fitch, Folsom, Gibson, Hawley, Hovey, Hudson, Kennedy, Kinkead, Mason, McClinton, Murdock, Parker, Proctor, Sturtevant, Tagliabue, Tozer, Warwick, Wetherill, and Mr. President-30. So the amendment was not agreed to. Mr. KENNEDY. With the consent of the Convention I would like to make a slight change in my amendment. I will strike out the words "subject to taxation," and insert instead the word "taxed," so as to read "excepting mines and mining claims, the proceeds of which alone shall be taxed." The PRESIDENT. I suggest to the gentleman that the word "alone" appears to have a peculiar significance in that connection. I only call his attention to it. [July 16. selves largely in debt. Now in the statutes of 1861 you will find a revenue bill taxing the net proceeds of the mines. Then we got nothing. In the statutes of 1863 you will find that we taxed the gross proceeds of the mines. Then we got four millions. In the statutes of 1864 you will find that the mines are taxed indiscriminately. Mr. CHAPIN. Allow me to correct the gentlemen, in one respect. The assessment under the law of 1863 was four millions nine hundred and eighty-seven thousand dollars-nearly five millions. Mr. STURTEVANT. That has been harped upon also. Now a few of us, I myself among others, came over here a few years ago and helped to find the mines. We have no objection, however, to your coming here and working them. You are welcome to come here and work the mines as much as you please, and we are glad to see you do it. I have been here ever since. I fought my way here, and probably shall be here longer than any of you, unless I should cease to live. But one of the material objects of having a State Government will be, as has already been suggested here, the protection of the mines. The General Government Mr. STURTEVANT. I believe a member has has attempted to impose a tax upon our mines a right to speak fifteen minutes on any question, in a way that I think is not altogether right, but I do not believe I have spoken that length and we ought to have representatives in Conof time altogether in the Convention. How-gress to tell them so. Just at this present time ever, I shall not bother the Convention now but we find ourselves in a dilapidated condition in a very few minutes. If I remember correctly this Territory, as you all know, and it could the proceedings which we have had on this very not be otherwise, but we look for improvement. important question, it is now in rather a strange Now this is, I believe, the fourth day that we fix. Now, sir, my view of this matter is plainly have been trying to get at this very point. this: By taxing the mines we can sustain a What is the use of being so long about it? What State Government, and without that we cannot. kind of a tangled-up mess is it that it should As to this thing of taxing the proceeds, it is take so long to unravel? Night before last we said if you want experience buy it. Now we decided in a great measure, or at least it was have tried the taxing of the net proceeds, and the prevailing idea, that the mines should not what did we get? Nought from nought and be taxed, but the next morning they uncovered nought remains." [Laughter.] Under the head a masked battery, that blew up all that, skyof gross proceeds, I believe the District Attor- high. [Laughter.] Last night the prevailing ney has decided-or at least it was so decided idea was, and it seemed to be satisfactory to all, in Storey County-that they meant net pro- that the mines should be taxed, and this mornceeds, and so we got a tax on some four mil- ing there is another masked battery again, and lions of dollars. Now this is one of the most sim- we find ourselves in another fix. ple and the shortest of questions-it should be at least that ever came before any Convention in the world. We came here with a full and distinct understanding of it. Is there any gentleman here who, before he came to this Convention, had not heard this important question discussed? If so he must have been deaf. [Laughter.] Therefore I do not know why we could not just as well in the start have said "yes" or "no upon it. It is the plainest question in the world. With the assistance of the mines we can sustain a State Government, and without that assistance we cannot, and we Mr. STURTEVANT. I would not like to hurt do not want to try it. We know that we are in the gentleman's feelings, because I am somedebt, as a Territorial Government, and we have what tender-hearted myself, but I hold myself the best of authority for positively knowing responsible, and will apologize if anything I that we can scarcely maintain that government, say should unintentionally hurt anybody. or at least that we have failed to maintain a Now much has been said here about the valTerritorial Government, so far, and we find our-ley counties, but the valley counties, at least 66 Mr. NOURSE. The Chair does not seem to call the gentleman to order, and I will protest against allowing him to make insinuations against gentlemen. Mr. STURTEVANT. Is your name "Masked Battery?" [Laughter.] Mr. NOURSE. I am speaking for others, not for myself; I have had several masked batteries sprung upon me, and therefore I protest against anything of the sort. The PRESIDENT. The gentleman from |