Litchfield enquirer., 1877-09-06
-Ars Titles and Debts Property,"

acting. and which is about to be brough before the Supreme Court of the United States for nsRision. in the case of RirtlaD. VI. Hotchksss; which has arisen in tn tovn of Woodbnry in this county 2' '
 The faeas are briefly these: Abont 1Se Mr. KirtIand, through ans agent loanet money in Chicago on realestate security The assessors of Woodbury put the mon ey 90 loaned in his list as money at inter est. and levied on his property in Wood bury for the tax laid on the money so as sessed- h the meantime, by the terms Of the contract. the owner of the real es tats in HliSOis which was nnorteaged fol paymsnt of this debt. was paying taxes on ths fall Evalue of the same in that Stats. without abatement on account of his indebtedness to' KrtIand. The case against HOtchkiss has been decided in our Supreme Court in his favor, Judge Foster dissenting, and the matter is now pending in the D. 8. Supreme Court for final adjudication. ,-.5 'aai ~- a9iAjgIa7s
 Mir WeIls takes the position, and .to cur thinking naintalns5 1t successfully, that debts are not proper subjeets.o of tax stion in any, case. He holds that it. is O0ly some physical actuality, located within the iurisdiction of the state, that can be taxed as property. In the case of real eatata his position is not denied. H. Endis land owned in Connecticut is taxed iR the former State and not in the latter. Nor does Connecticut go so far as Massa- ehusstts and claim the. right to, tax the ''chattsls. saeh as cattle or other tangible personal property. owned by its citizens in other States. It is only intangible '-property. sach as debts. that are said, for the purposes of taxation, to follow the domicil of the owner and to be subject sO taxation there. But Mfr. Wells takes the grOand that this intangible right of action eAlisa debt is. in no true sense, taxable property H is only of value when it tt Nves its pOssessOr some legal or equi. tAhss intsrest in tangible property; and. h sach c@se. If that and the property
 
 it a plain case of double taxation. 'lll .
 Lei us sappOse. for instance, that A, aeltia@a of Illinois. and B. a citizen of C0@nse1sUaf. buy real estate in Illinois wursh SaoO0. each furnishing half the PzseAsss price. Connecticut in that case eAMsmm u0 Mx Ths reasons are obvious. T3xs aEs vh2t the citizen pays the state Ger ths protection of his property. In this e~ss ks losks tO the courts of Illinois for. Prsasski0a, ed to that state are justly d1s tAs taxes upon it Connecticut csn- 1st protect it's citizens in the possession of tAaApEsparty. She neither lays out r0~1s gox sAs transportation of 1has pro- dnsas nnF farnishes him any such hhelel as wozA eaaifls her to tax Now let us szppsas Ehst instead of becoming tenants in s1@@0s of that land. A and B i make . adzMersnk distribsfion of their interests iaA The Minoisan wishes to live upon ths hMs1unds simproveit. He consequently s<rzaxes with B, as follows: He agrees thna thsy shau buy the land as before; but that BIs interest therein shall be one thAsR0f fxed and not of a variable value. Hei< to hare only his $l0OO with interest, A taking the chance of gain if he pur- eAas@s and manages the estate prudently, @na of ths loss if he fails so to do. In the foEmsF cMse. ct the end of a term of years, tAs prUperty may be worth @, ,oOO.' Two thEras of this belongs to B. and only one thiEsa ss A. But let us suppose the prop eF4Y depssciased to like extent Then A has b take it all to pay his Sl 900. This AsxAesly the interest created between tAs PaEA5es by mortgage. As in tbe e@se of a. tenancy in common, there Is given amount of cash invested; eaeh has 2 certain interest in the real es. tAAsParoA.sed. Together they own it's, fse-sfmuas and no more, whether the arr rzAgsmsat between them be that of ten. saas h cannon or that of, mortgaeee and @0sHBAgor. gs - .zGi saas ssf5 suyrv
 Bat in the latter csse the State of Con. aectScat cones down upon it's citizen with lts deuand of a tax. On what considera. ts0a is this claim founded? What help can it give its citizen regarding that property9 It's eoorts have no jurisdiction of the @~tssr- If evicted, or if obliged, to fore, esoes. B must seek his remedy in the eoazta oE- IIlinO;s But, say the State aa- thorikieA. "yoar person is protected here Id Gsnnectieatl That is sufficient com an4eration for taxation of all your proper c. keFsoe elsswhere." On what then is tAs right of laying poll tax based2 Q. wiAA mo properly whatever, has the same PszsooAl protection ass' B whou owns his tAoanAnda. If demagogues have been the means of rating Mr. 'Kirtland's person tee bgE in ths tax list, is that any reason for tzxing property of his which neither tAe Staia of Connecticut nor the town of woodhaEv makes even ihe pretsnce, of protesting ?-ssgss 5lo ni s45vsr os iavi1 gu
 nmuzt be TTemembersd that the whole S9ooo invested by A or B is already, fslly, tzzna. where it shouid be. in Illinois. Or 0sa sEAsass book ahas always aac.s knouisaged the injustice of taxing both ths Lad aRa As debt, secured thereon, So@ssames iA is the lender who is made e pey tks tax. but fin nthas case ths lad is relieved to precisely the anozas ef the lsndeEs tex. Doutle tax sA1sa an pass of home loans would be too maastrOas to bs borne.n Yet there weld bs some shadow oI clam on the Asma lender for . tax; for our courts hslp him tS e@llect his debt, sorb toe. .fore- eAoas his mortgage. .o's's'
 We e.nuut but think. however, that sNam la eases of aloan not secured fby 1aeteaset thegs sAonld be no taxation. of sAe dshks Ir, Wells addnces. as much Dars ssaaonant wish thsspirit of theoage sAAa the dOctnns of our own eoarts,9 the wmnw1k Cmfifnxnia AAnsssnn which awa,,k