Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1868-06-26
TAXING MORTGAGES.

question Of taxation, and each of the
leading papers has its distinct theory on
the subject, no two agreeing. We will
recite the respective theories Of tho But-
letin and Times to illustrate the DIVERSE
ty of opinions upon this apparently
knotty, but, as w shall attempt TO
prove, really simple question. The po-
sition Of the Bulletin is epitomized 10
the assertion that "the capitalists can
only be taxed for money on hand and
solvent debts, after a full deduction Of
debts which he may W others has
been made" The position Of the Times
that is, tho theory of that paper, re-
gardless of the local statutes, is
summed up thus: "The taxation Of
debts of any kind-whether secured or
not secured, solvent or insolvent, gross
or net-is unjust so long as property is
taxed to its full value in the hands Of
the holder"
Bold and presumptious rs II may ap-
pear for a little provincial sheet to
take issue with these leading moulders
Of metropolitan opinion, we yet declare
that both of these theories and the elnb.
crate arguments by which they are sup
ported are fallacies. We will not insin-
uate q doubt Of their caudor, hence
conclude that they have taken a very
incomplete or erroneous view Of the
question. In considering the subject Of
taxation, the first step is the most i'm
portant. Why is property taxed? To
support the Government which levies
the tax. Why should property help
support the Government? Because
Government protects property and
thereby maintains and enhances its
value. In taxing property to the extent
necessary to enable US to protect it, the
question Of ownership is considered but
incidentally and for convenience.
1t is the business of the State, in this
connection, to search for the property
which it protects and derive from that
property its fair proportion of taxation.
Whether it be o house, q lot, coin, q
note, a bond or ragged piece Of blank
paper, if it is property and is possessed
Of or convertible into intrinsic value, it
is fairly taxable in proportion to that
value. The name of the owner, or the
proportion of the property owned by
the person in whose possession it is
found are matters Of secondary import
anee, and questions in which the State
may or may not take an interest. A
stack Of coin or sack Of crude bullion
on a goods box at the corner Of Clay
and Montgomery streets, If equally pro-
tec.ed, is as justly liable to its proper
ton Of taxation as the same amount in
bank or invested in real estate. If q
person can be found who claims owner
ship or possession, the entry Of his
name may facilitate the listing of the
property, but his %solvency, insolvency
or indebtedness do not affect the States
claim to a certain tax for the protection
afforded that property, and in the alb
sence Of any claimant, it might properly
be listed as ga stack Of coin or " sack
| Of bullion on the corner of Clay and
Montgomery street." and tho due
amount Of tax collected therefrom. A
note, if convertible into intrinsic values
as readily as that other representative
Of value, coin, or if it would be as
readily as that other representative &c
cepted in payment Of debt, is certainly
as much entitled TO be regarded as
property and therefore as justly taxable.
Whether q note belongs to q capitalist
who is indebted to others and has his
notes outstanding which represent his
Indebtedness, or whether it belongs to
a laborer who owes no debts and has no
other property, is %immaterial. The note
of the capitalist and those which stand
against him, if convertible on their own
merits into real estate, money, live
stock or provisions, are property, and
no more fit subjects Of offsets, one
against the other, than one twenty dol
lar piece in the pocket of the capitalists
creditor is an offset against a similar
piece of coin in possession of the capt.
talist.
If John Doe, who has neither a dollar
0 a dollars worth in the world, meets
Richard Roe, who is possessed Of q
horse worth a hundred dollars, and
John buys Richards horse and gives
him his note therefor, the question
whether that note is property to nm
equal extent with the horse and as just.
ly liable to taxation, hinges on the
question whether it is equally, as indie.
pendently and for equal value converti-
BILE into intrinsic value, and whether ii
is equally protected by the Government.
Aud if SOM other man holds Richards
uotc for an amount equal to this note
held by Richard, the n is no more
properly an Offset against the other than
a horse owned by some creditor Of John
Doe should be an Offset against the
horse of said John. No n will dis
pute the propriety of taxing both horses,
no matter who owns them nor how i'm
poverished their owners or possessors.
We can conceive nc logical reason why
both notes should not be subject to the
same rule.
PLACER County, CALrroRsIA.-From
the Herald of the goth we clip the fol-
lowing:
On Sunday last one Of the sons Of Jane,
Mccormick, ESQ, Deputy Collector Of this
t.. - Al. :,;,,oJ 10 ha;n1 -, 49,,