The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1875-01-07
DAVID A. WELLS ON THE TAXA
TION OF TITLES.

TION or TITLES.
Land alone actual property--The injustice
and AJsudity Of treating titles to property
as de property itseg'
To uhe editor ofdhe Tribune.
SIR. 1t is curious what strange ideas
find their way into the heads of some
persons in respect to the liability Of prop
erty TO taxation, from their inability to
draw a clear distinction between actual
property and titles TO properly. For ex-
ample, in the Tribune of Nov, 26 is II
communication signed "W. j. N" which
assumes that tax on mortgage is tax
on property and justi6es taxation Of
mortgages on the ground that mortgage
is a title to so much of the property
mortgaged as is represented by the loan.
This is equivalent to the assumption that
titles are property and ignores the fact that
the land which is the subject Of the title
whether it be mortgage" title or
'fee simple" title-is alone the property,
To show the utter absurdity of such an
assumption, let us suppose case.
A partnership Of two persons own a
piece of real estate in New Jersey, and
one of the partners resides out of the
State-say in New York. This partner
ship land is taxed as whole in New
Jersey. But if the title to the land in
addition be property, then the New York
partner is clearly subject to assessmentin
respect to taxes for his share of the pro-
erty in New York, which would he doub-
le taxation on part Of the same proper
ty, and that too by State which can
give no protection to the part thus taxed
extra-territorially. 1t is, however, well
settled by the decisions Of the United
States Courts, and the courts of the State
of New York, that no State can tax prop
erty beyond its jurisdiction, and that
only one State can tax the same property
at the same time; or in other words, that
the determination of the SituS Of any Civ
Ell property, or its capability of being
taxed, in one State, excludes the posi-
bility of the Sitlts, and capability of taxa
ton being in any other State at the same
time. If, therefore, the land is property
in the State where it is, and where it is
taxed, then the deed, the mortgage, the
partnership interest, or any other form
of title, cannot be the property for the
same thing certainly cannot be property
in two distinct State or Jurisdictions, and
in two distinct forms at the same time.
On the other hand, if it be assumed that
the title whatevert may be, partnership,
interest, mortgage, debt or deed to the
property, and as such can be taxed then
the land in New Jersey, which is the sub
iect of the title, must be excluded from
taxation there, and regarded as not prop
erty, or in other words, the land is not
in New Jersey, but where the owner re-
sides, having gona out of the State in the
pocket of the individual who walked off
with the title deed, mortgage deed, and
the like. We have learned of such a
concentration of meat, that all that is val
liable in an OK for food can be put into
quart can; but such concentration of
property as is here supposed is some
thing altogether more remarkable, and
admits of man having ten acres of wood
land in the crown of his hat, church
with a long steeple in one coat pocket,
and four-story brick block, with possi-
bly, mill privilege, in the other.
Soberly, however, the making of no
form of indebtedness--le lease, deed, mort
gage, or any other form of title-creates
or produces any new property, but simply
indicates the rights, titles or interests Of
parties in pre-existingproperty and any
tax on any of these tides is onl ly another
form of burdening the property which is
the subject of these titles. Furthermore.
if tax is levied on these titles in any
other State than the one where the prop
erty is located, the tax is an extra-terr-
torial tax, and, therefore, by the decision
of the U. S. Supreme Court, pnconstitu-
tional and if levied on mortgage titles
within the same territorial jurisdiction
as the land is, which is also there taxed,
is simply double taxation on one and the
same property, or an odiOus discrimi-
nation against lands which happened to
be covered by such titles The land in
the instances cited bears the burden OF
taxation as Il whole but the taxation
will apportion itself on the persons hold
ing the various forms of titles to the
parts, whatever be the nature Of these
titles-leasehold, mortgage debt, fee-sim-
pie quit-claim, &C.. and this not by law
but by mutual agreement, as in the case
of landlord and tenant.
DAVID A. WELLS.
Norwich, Coun., December, 1874.