The Grange advance. [volume] (Red Wing, Minn.) 1873-1877, 1877-08-01
Taxing Mortgages.


ton, although apt to conclude that
they know all that is to be known
about it, are often likely to bctray
even greater ignorance than they are
justly chargeable with. Comment
ing recently On the taxation OF mort
cages we made use Of the following
language:
This augmentation consists principally in
mortgages unretu,Ted by the holders, and
some persons are teicitatins themselves with
the idea that the rich men who hold the mort
cages Will have the additional taxes to pay
Yam deiusion! They will make those who
nofIoW thelr money pay such taxes III every
instance and will not themselves be made /,
penny poorer: To lis this plan Of taxing mort
cages looks like injustice The mortgages are
not property. They Go not. like railroad, bank,
OF manufacturing companies stock, represent
values, put are simple evidences Of indebted
ness. Inc debts they secure are investments in
property, iHnd such property itself is taxed.
Hence the taxing Of mortgages is a double
taxation OF the same value on property.
We find that exceptions are taken
to these assertions, even to the extent
Of denying their truthtulIless and &C
cusing us Of erraying ourself on the
side Of the rich money loaners and
against the poorer people. The Ar
gus, Of this city, even proceeds to the
length Of concluding it's criticism of
our article in this wise:
This cool proposition to discriminate in favor
marks sad decline in a paper which but i,
short time since opposed all monopolics, and
was the especial champion OF the farmer, the
mechanic and the laborer.
The writer Of the Argus article
ought to have borne in mind that &C.
cusatlons are not arguments, and that
his concluding paragraph is not,
therefore, pertinent. We have spent
4 lifetime in advocating the cause of
the people against all who would in
anywise Cypress them, and are not
now disposed to turn traitor to Our
principles, and when such charge is
brought against US it would be we'll
for him who brings it to support it
with better evidence than our neigh
Dor advances. He says that it is not
true that money loaners twill make
those who borrow their money pay
such taxes" Does he mean to as
sert that men will loan money at
I'm, ,i same rates Of interest when they
have to pay three or four per cent.
taxes, as when these mortgage s are
not taxed
Oh! but the law, he tells us, viii
conflne them to twelve per cent.
They dare not exceed that exaction
because, to do so, will endanger their
claim. But before that law was passed
and since, money has been obtainable
in this State at less than twelve per
-cent. We know that, last fall,
prominent money lender in St. Paul
gave notice that he would, after a
certain date and that he did, reduce
the rate of interest, and a gentleman
Of this city had made arrangements
this spring to lend at ten per cent.
In both these instances the parties
have again raised the interest rate
because OF this imposition of tax on
mortgages. These parties would soon
have been followed by others, and
we have not a doubt that by this
time ten per cent interest would have
been the prevailing rate on loans Sc
cured by mortgages on farms, but
for this taxation clause. So much,
then, for that argument.
But the idea that a usury law IS or
can be made protective to the neces-
sitous borrower is simply preposter-
GUS, for the reason that it is always
possible to evade its provisions,
and the borrower is equally interested
with the lender in profiting by such
evasion. Our neighbor ought to have
thought moment longer upon this
point of his argument. Suppose for
instance, that a bonus has been paid
paid for a loan, is it not true that its
payment must be proved before the
..anal4.x .a,.a..;Lod liz tho lo,.x oa,a la