The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1877-09-29

(borrower) without abatemen on account Of the
mortgage lien that the property might be sold at
auction, in Chicago, by the trustee, in case Of any
default of payment, and that a good title. free from
any right Of redemption, on the part OF the obligor,
might In that case be given by the trustee. Another
interesting feature of the case, not to be overlooked,
was, that pending the proceedings to be next re-
lated, the loans as originally made became due and
removed from Illinois and returned to Mr.. Kirt-
land in Connecticut, we're reinvested in Chicago
by his agent, under terms and conditions as before.
These facts becoming known to the tax officials
Of the town of Woodbury. they added in 1863 to the
list of property returned by Kirkland for the pur-
pose of taxation, as situated within the State, the
sum of eighteen thousand dollars ; and in 1870
the sum of twenty thousand dollars, to represent
the amount of property owned and loaned by Kirt-
land, in each OF these years, as was conceded, with
out the territory of the State. The sums thus
added were subsequently assessed in the town of
Woodbury. In the same manner and at the same
rate as was other property which Mr.. Kirkland
owned within the State and there situated.
Payment of the taxes thus assessed N the amount
of these Illinois loans being refused by Kirkland.
the tax collector (Hotchkiss), in April, 1873, levied
his tax warrants on the real estate of the alleged
delinquent in Woodbury., and advertised the same
for sale and on petition for injunction to restrain
the collector from such proceedings, on the ground
of the ~illegality of the tax in question and its assess
ment, the case for the first time came before one OF
the interior courts (the superior) Of Connecticut.
There, upon hearing, it being agreed by oil parties
tudk Tx OuLY QuC6NAOu Al ~ SoS "o1
whether the bonds owned by Kirkland, drawn in
the form and secured in the manner stated were
liable to taxntion in Connecticut, the cause, by
agreement, was referred (for advIce) to the court
Of last appeal in the State, known as the Supreme
Court of Errors, a temporary injunction, in accor-
dance with the prayer of the petitioner, being at
the same time granted. After further hearing and
argument, this latter court. in June, 1875, dis
missed the petition and dissolved the injunction,
one Judge (Foster) out Of a full bench of five alone
dissenting. Sent back to the superior court, the
record of the case Was then on motion transmitted
again to the Court Of Errors for revision of errors
in respect to involved questions of constitutional
law; and the decision being here again adverse
(the judges dividing as before), the case was next
appealed to the Supreme Court Of the United States.
on the docket of which it now stands entered for
trial in order. With this brief statement of the
origin of q case (Kirtland o. Hotchkiss) which is
certain to become historical, inasmuch as according
10 the future decision of the United States Supreme
Court in respect to it. the arbitrary, unjust. and
economically unsound system of taxation at present
existing in most Of the States will either receive
o new lease of life and continuance, or else be so
far broken in upon and changed ss to necessitate .
new and better system, attention is next asked to
the economic and constitutional questions involved
in the case, and to the light which their discussion
sheds upon the general principles of taxation and
upon the sphere within which the several States
of the Union, under the federal compact. are limited
in their exercise of this function: And in this
discussion, little more can be attempted or achieved
than to follow and enlarge upon the opinion of
the single dissenting judge of the Connecticut
Court of Errors (Hon. L. F. s. Foster, formerly
president of the senate and acting vice-president
of the United States), which in point Of legal and
economic wisdom, and clearness Of reasoning, is
confessedly equal to any similar opinion that has
heretofore emanated from the Connecticut bench.