Sf unity, ( h Inbor ft, I i' if t
Nr Ymis - - f .'."
Kit M ISIIH ......... . Ml
Fiu.r. ('orv - . Id
SfKK ri V IV A f V VN( p.
PutuM In inorii-M ti M'-nrv or it l'tirt
A'1rorMln IJ'i!'' 1'in'tc know u mi lin
ll'IO tfl tit" lHIitl rillll '
I' !!' ( ! i c r w i c j't'ci i'.i nil "iilxcrl pt inn
lf rf O.mimmiN mil Jul. printing lire 'nyntiU'
in mr ii-iit! M tii y.
'f'1ri' ll CslllUl'lllllil HtllMI tl 'I If F. OAKH,
Nrnl,1 ntn Cruz cxuity, Aruotet.
PablUhM Etffjr Stiturdrty t Nodule. jnt
CracConitty, Ari.orm, by THE OAHl
Printing lloun. Incorporated.
Al.f.KX T. HIKI, Managing Kriltor.
IliNK l. ItlKii. limine Malinger.
For Delegate to Congress
CHARLES F. AIN3WORTH
Republican District Ticket
For Joint Councilman
E. V. DICKERMAX.
Hon. Chas. F. Ainsworth
the Statehood Candidate tor Congress,
will discuss the issues of the day
before the people of Santa Cruz coun
ty, at Nogales, the time and plaee to
be announced later.
WILL NOT BEAR ANALYSIS.
Here is one rea-n which alone, wo
:ire4uite sure, will he sufficient fornine
U'.ntliM of the taxpaver.s of this territory.
It is the difference hetween the tax rate
erf Arizona and that of New Mexico.
The territorial tax rate of New Mexico
last year was $1.50. The territorial tax
rate" of Arizona at the same time wa.
.t)5. (It will he somewhat lower this
year.) We uresnnie, though it is a
violent presumption, that the money
raised by the New Mexican rate was
economically and judiciously expended
lor the isnpport of the territorial insti
tutions. We are certain that this money
raitittl by our tax rate was so spent.
Bisbee Iteview .
Like all the rest of the assump
tions of the anti-statehood news
papers the foregoing from the
Review, which is going the rounds
of the anti-statehood press, will
not bear analysis and considera
tion in the light of cold facts.
In the first place itis hut two or
three years since the territorial tax
rate in Arizona was $1.50, exactly
the same as in New Mexico. At
that time the assessment rolls of
the two territories were likewise
very similar in their footings.
Arizona showed a total of about
forty-two million dollars, and New
Mexico about ore million more.
Since then the action of the terri
torial board of equalization in rais
ing the assessments of the mines
and railroads has greatly increased
the total in Arizona, and reduced
the rate. That is all there is to
that. Without the raises made on
the mines and railways the present
disparity of which so much is made
by the Review, at id omnc genvn,
would have appeared not for them
to , prate about. Now except in
the valuation for taxation of the
tf t J f r f f Til ,t y (It" i -f d v i I
u iIImh r.f .ill j.r "i fly in Afi'Mi i i
f y hih, wlitl'- in
.- v f v 1 sv . ( luf i
, VV M-i.-f. if
. i.f fd'
ml niltt.iv in Ari"in liV j will l- I'-4 even Unit if U in A n
v.iltnti'iu of pri-l" rf y ! (. now. H,,,uld the Nev Mexico
m." f r r t r I'l per mil f.f p r ! be st I t 1 (he lolnl tail-le
ecu! ,.f it- iiftu tl value, f ii New
M x '! (he H"se-Med v.iluitinn iif
of ;tli property M but about. lt',1 per
criit of it. actual value An ex
.itniti.ition of the censm return- fur
tlx1 two territories will War out
tliis n sserlion. Hero are some of
the figures from the census of lDOO;
ran ire :
of live stork on farm
Arizona. 15,. J."i,c,S7 ;
Value of farm land and buildini::
Arizona. fn.GS2.Wl0; New Mexico,
Total number of farms: Arizona.
r,80; New Mexico, 12U1.
Number of males ensued in agricul
ture: Arizona, 115,473; New Mexico.
Total value of farm product of lSW:
Arizona, f G,907,0!7 ; New Mexico, $10,
155,215. Total expenditure for labor on farms
in 1S00: Arizona, $11,152,070; New
(iross farm income of 18W: Arizona,
$8,111,132; New Mexico, $12,020,035.
New Mexico ranges thirtieth among
the states and territories in total num
ber of farms reporting wheat raised,
and Arizona thirty-fifth.
New Mexico ranks forty-fourth in the
production of cereals in number of
pounds, and Arizona forty-sixth.
New Mexico ranks thirty-seventh in
total number of wheat bushels, and
In value of all crops raised in 1SU0,
includiui: vegetables, Arizona with
$2,432,471 worth ranks fiftieth and New
Mexico forty-seventh, with $3,030,200.
The official figures issued by the
United States lhireau of Statistics for
19J3 show the following:
Wheat production : Arizona. 483,!G4
bushels, worth $150,087; New Mexico,
822,701 bushels, worth $817.021.
Corn production: Arizona, 1U4,!25
bushels, worth $175,432; New Mexico,
i5(i,08S bushels, worth $717,5111.
Oat production: Arizona, 14.4i'.S
bushels, worth $30,325; New Mexico.
345,147 bushels, worth $213,891.
Wool production: Arizona. 4.387,500
pounds; New Mexico, 10,250,000 i-otiinls.
Arizona had over a million sheep:
New Mexico nearlv four millions.
So from the very latest census it
is apparent that in all the proper
ty enumerated New Mexico ex
ceeds Arizona in valuation by a
very large percentage. In farm
lands and buildings the excess is
nearly 54 per cent. In the num
ber of farms it is 112 per cent. In
live stock on farms and ranges it
is 100 per cent greater. Taking
the two items together (livestock
and farms) and the valuations
shown give New Mexico an excess
of nearly 80 per cent more than
Arizona. When those properties
are all under one state govern
ment there will be one basis for
assessment. The state board of
equalization will regulate it;' and
either the basis for the entire state
will have to come up to the Ari
zona basis, or go down to the New
Mexico basis. That will be one
of the first duties the new state
board of equalization will have to
perform, and very likely it will be
a duty put upon it by constitu
tional mandate. Like all consti
tutions the new fundamental law
will provide that taxation shall be
equal and uniform, and it will put
upon the board of equalization it
creates the power and duty, to ad
just valuations in the various
counties so they will be equal in
all. Should it be raised to the
Arizona basis then the total assess-
IlK lif it, tf N''.f ,f I end (if
f I , ,- V ! Ifr- Will ' ""! fiiill PI
(In Af'"ti;l I'li'l, idol llic ft f i'f
Will (! M Me 4it III it f he ld(; i tie
v.iltiatioi, of sitoil ir pi'MperlM' iff ,
Arizona would drvfw-'i'. but I hoy
would cool inue f War the .amo
relation to New Mexico valuation
!H !h'wn by the ceiMii return,
and the burden of luxation would1
be no greater here than there,
And there might he one advantage j
in adoption of the New Mexico
basis. It would bring the assessed
values of all properties in this end
of the new state more near the
assessed valuations of the great
mines and railways. That might
be a great advantage to the ordi
nary taxpayer; and this is an idea
that has not occurred to i
In this connection it is not amiss
to make mention of the cry heard
so frequently, that the people of j
New Mexico would conspire to put
tho burdens of taxation upon the
Arizona end of the new state. Itis
strange that anyone with the most
ordinarv knowledge of govern -
ment shall he so simple as to he -
lieve that. It would be an impost
bility, and were it attempted there
would be so many safeguards that
it could not he successful. In the
first place the constitution will pro
vide that taxation shall be equal
and uniform. Then that instru-j sideration for the place. Hut should
ment will create a board of equali-1 he be appointed, within twenty
zation upon which body will be j four hours after he qualified, there
imposed the constitutional duty of j would bo about three hundred anti
making taxation equal and uni- statehood men now in office in Ari
form. Should that body fail in its j zona who would he made to walk
duty, it would be the duty then of j the plank,
the aggrieved counties to hale into! .
court the board of equalization,
and compel it to perform its duty j in both the republican and demo
impartially. liut there will be nojeratic platforms, and guess who
danger of having to do that. There
will be elected to the board high
minded men from both ends of the
state who will do their duty con
scientiously and faithfully.
Readers of The Oasis' should;
not fail to read the three platforms j
of principles now before the electors ;
of Arizona, which are printed side
by side upon another page this
week. The democratic and repub
lican platforms are as void of
issues as was ever a political docu
ment of whatever nature, and they
were written, evidently, by the
same man. The one issue present
ed positively is that of opposition
to statehood, and the two declara
tions are in the same identical
words. Upon the other -hand the
platform of the statehood party
presents issues It calls attention
to evils under which the people of
Arizona are suffering and asks
Congress to remedy them, until
such time as Arizona shall become
a state, and it advocates statehood
under the conditions proposed by
Congress as the best that can be se
cured, and as necessary to attain
ing that self government without
which no commonwealth is a free
to Mail Deposits
j So mi-: of the Arizona newspaper
j are asserting again that Colonel
Bird aspires to succeed Governor
Kibhey. Colonel Rird has no such
aspirations, and is not under con-
Rkad the planks on statehood
wrote them. Was it Mark Smith
or Ellinwood? That the same man
wrote them both is a safe con
clusion. ASK US FOR
To any point on Sonora Ry., on
Gia. d6 fe.rreteria u
Const S- ft.
NOGALES and IIERMOSILLO
'Mia - Jy) ' X r
xml | txt