, 1877-08-20
David A. Wells Paper In the
"At1antic" for Sep
tember.
A Connecticut Man Loans Money
in Illinois on Chicago Real
Estate Security;
And Is Taxed in Connecticut on the
Bonds Covering That Illinois
Real Estate.
4 Demonstration OF the Wrongfulness
Of Snch Action Of The Conncc.
tlcnt Authorities.

What Is Propcrty7-What Are Titles to
Property ty7-The Relation Of Debts
to Property.
Atlantic AonthiE .fnr September.
A case has recently occurred which practically
and clearly briggs before the public the full
bearing and effect Of the present Eeneralfy-ac-
ccptcd theory Of State taxation, and Involves at
the same time details OF interest adequate, 1t
would seem. to command The attention Of nil
Interested In having good government, lust
laws, and continuous economic progress. In
what this case consists IL ia now proposed to
tell; and .hcn to consider what differences, IN
the way Of economic principle, law. and equity,
are dcducIbic from IT,
STATEMENT OF TIE CASE.
In 1864 or previous Charles ". Kirkland.
citizen of Woodbury., Litchdc!d County, Conn.,,
loaned money, through an agent, ! resilient and
citizen OF Illinois, on bonds SECURED hy deeds OF
trust On real estate In the City Of Chicago. Each
Of these honts declared "that 1t was ulnde u,t-
DIR, mud IN MI respects to bc construed by, tho
laws OF the State OF Illinois," md that the rrn-
cinal aud interest OF tho obligation wcrc pay
ahle in the CITY Of Chicago. Tic decd Of trust
MISC contained provision tl,at all taxes and
assessments CIT tho property conveyed should
be paid hy tho oblsor (borrowcrl without abatc-
ment on account Of the mortgaYc-lien: tl,at
.he property might be sold At auction, in Chi
cago hy the trustee, In case of any default Of
payment; mud that good title, free from my
right Of redemption On tue part al the obltgor,
might In that elso be given bv tho trustee.
Another interesting feature OF the rasc, nat 10
be overlooked. was, that, pending the proceed
ines To be next relatcd. the loans as originally
made became due and were paid; wien the
proceeds, without being removed from illinois
md returned to Nj. kirslanl In Connecticut,
were rc!uvc*tcd in Chicago By hls agent, undor
terms and conditions W before.
These facts becoming known to the tax-ofl-
rtals of the Town OF Woodbury., they aided In
lsb0, to the list o, property returned by Kirt-
land for the purpnse Of taxation, ns situated
within the State, the sum Of sl5,00 and In 1870
tho sun, Of s20,000, to represent the amount Of
property owned and loaned by ktriland, In each
OF these years, as was c0nccticd without the
territory Of the State. TIC su,nB thus added
were subsequently, assessed in tho Town Of
Woodbury. In tho same manner aud at the saa,u
rate as was other property which Mr.. Kirtlaul
owned within thc s;ate and there Situated.
Payment OF the taxes thus assessed on tho
amount Of these flltnosa 9oaas being refused bg
Kirkland, thu Tax Collector (tIotcllklssl, In April,
1873, levied his tn1-wafrants on the real cstateof
tho alleged delinquent in Woodbury., and aavsr-
tlscd the same for sale, md, on pctNlon for In
junction to rcstrntn the Collector from sucl, pro
ccclngs, on Tie GROUND OF tho iIlccalttr Of tho
taxin question aud its assessment, the case eca,ne
for The first time hcfore one Of the Inferior
courts tho SUPERIOR nf Connecticut. There,
upon hearing 1t lcin1 agreed by all parties con-
cerued tImt thu oniy question III the ease was
whether tho bonds owned bE Kirkland, drnwn In
the form and secured tn the manner stated.
cAusc, by agreement, WINS referred {for nlylcc)
TO the court nj last appeal 1T tho State, kaowIl
rs The Supreme Court OF Errorf,-a temporary
Injunction, IN accordance with the prayer Of tile
petitioner, being at tho eat1Ie time granted.
After further bearing and argument, this latter
court, In juno, ls55, dismissed tho petition anil
dissolved tle iBjunctEon.--tnc .Jtdgc (Foster)
ocut Of iu!l ben:h ot t!ys alone dissenting.
the case was then, on n,otion, transmitted agali.
10 tho Court .; Errors for revision Ut errors In
rrspcct 10 Involved questions III constitutional
law; aud. s's decision being hero ayala adverse
nest appealed 10 tho Supreme Court of tho
United States, un the docket of WHICH It nov
stands entered ior trIui in order. With ttls
iand @ Va. iI"'vhk!ssJ which u certalh 10
Ge to he future avsision t II i The g"Itsa
siatca suareIne Court IN respect to It, tlc aF-
\ ltEurf, nnjust. and econolnteal!y-unsounds sys-
tclu Of taaatton at present existing IN must ai
the States MIL either rec Ire nav icasa 81 l'lt
Anu continuance, or else oo 20 Tar broken IN W.
un And c,utiseA as 10 t1cchssitate nov ami bet-
Ter systeli', attention Ii next asEe'i 10 tho cco-
o,nis and constitutional G1estso,ls involved in
&he ra.c, and To tie light Whvt their discussion
sheds upon the general principles VI taxation,
and upon thu ri'Ilcfc within Nhsc! tue seycra!
STATES Of thu unl'n. under TIC Federal euni-
Nurf. aru limited U their rScrrlsc Of this fuu,.-
t!p'h And, ln tss discussion, lttlc n!ore Gull
be attempted q achieved thali 70 foll1" anu
enlarge lln"n t!t opllllon a. tuu single aisscat-
Ing Judge 81 TUG Cnnnttt'cut Court NJ Errors
tthc Hon. L. +, T. Foster, formerly President Of
thc Senate and Acting V1cc,Pre"!de9s Of the
Limited sta,ss Whsa @ caa.ncs aa nos. & ~ .egai aa
reasoning, is contessed,y equal 10 any sltutlar
opinion that ilaa heretofore emauated from The
Connecticut bench.
TMH QUESTIONS or INTEREST INVOLVED.
A very cursory examination VIII satisfy that
the qncstlons of Interest," alid Importance In
Tf1Vtal thA fN u kOnEOly fUll0KE: Hint.