, 1877-08-20

""'tI& tG hESt+1hElt VT tlHFs my Duf.
suppose that nny Increase Of National OF State
Indebtedness would inrrca.o the wealth OF tho
countrrf II So. national debt w'nli not only
h. n''o"a hs hetiInS St an ns'a, W. .ns
some persons welded TO the thcoly that
dchts are property, that they, logically feel
alarmed at the liquidation 81 debts ~ Cseat
natonai and pr|vate Is Wealth. md and 'i p"y%eas met"
poverty; and these i,leas hare hccn, and yet,
in harmony With our ratfunat-crrcncy syste,n
and our generally accepted systems OF State tax.
attnn.
These rca,onings on the nature aud origin Of
property, and the relation IL sustans 10 titles
and debts, would, therefore, eccm to invest tho
alone would .have eonpcilcl hin, to ,llssu,,t
from hts associates. with the force ot polttfco-
economic and legal axiom. namely: " That
property and debt considered rs q representa-.
constitute together tt one sub for tho p'ir.
| pose uf taxation. The tax being paid 6t the
property Without dlminution OIL account Of tho
Indeed, aside from tic property bchfud Il, anil
ef which It IA the Representative, is simply
! worthless"
WHAT THE coysEcT1cur Court pECIpEp.
The lrst question Involved In tho kirtfand
ease which came bclnro tho Connecticut court
for decision, was, therefore, joint pofEtic.'-
economic and legal question. and may be thu:
eosprehsn';cly stats: % 4rtiate s; ; h;1 ; rear,
| 10 The prortsson. and restretia'. ef ie Federal
compact and conasit'ttion, eaisllk IF lti"g Aep-
erta J.om The propt,tE or phy.'taM! ~ Maetaay J,pn
eiqnfp. to tarationi Tic Connecticut Court con-
cc.lc1 that. In tho easc OF real and tangible
property, The title Is not capable Of being acv-
different iarIsdlctlons. The Massachusctts law.
makers and law.ntcrrrctcrs have not, howcvev,
got g. far ahead o. II lberaltty as
pras,y q !mprson'nent % % for default OF 'is: pay
incnt, aro Attl wrung from citizens int properly
in the nature o., visible. tangible 1novahles, rs
cattle, and stocks of goods, anil tho like, adj
But the Connecticut court, III rcspec. to titles
III The nature Of notes. bombs, and mortgages,
ami debts, decided that there was some other
prtneEp,le, ,, insolssd' And refused to eoneede to
title, to realty, and to visible, tangible per
sonal property. But. In concedlng that Titles
cannot be eepaated from realty, thy conceded
can dispute that atr. K'rt1anl'e nlortgage was
anything other than IN equitable or tnchoatc
title to Visible, tangible property In Illinois.
Consider, also. the Inconsistencies and absurd
Kirkland had sent his money to Chicago anil
had invested 1t by purchase In q cattle
yurd. the, t!ttc y tho actnallty, IN. tho
FORM ot DECD. would not have been considered
been there taxable. But, II he had united with
others, TWO, three, or more, and, forming cor
roration, had bought ths same property, then
The Connecticut court, this same property
would have Increased ns,d multiplied. and be-
comc ubiquitous, BY merely varying lts method
OF purchase and tncItlolt II title. Thus there
would be, first. the physical actaality, In tho
form OF the cattle~yard, as before, no more and
no less, which lllinnts would tar Is real estate;
then, there woitld be the legal t!tle to the prop
next, tic equitable interest vested in The stock
holders, one OF whom, in the person OF Mr.
Kirkland, Hives iu Connecticut: and II, per-
chance, thc actlalty should bc subsequently,
lands brother IN Connecticut, there would be
stl another ulsd paramount title, at lcaat to tho
extent OF tho. debt, to tho other two. The
Judgment Of tho Connecticut court WIS to tue
were two propertics,-the actnaltty In illinois,
the existence of which could not well bo dcuicd,
and the tnortgage-t!tlc In Connecttcut THO
courts ot stassael,1sstts tin which State tho Of
asecssmcnt),, following precedent and practice,
would havc decided that thcro werc three: tho
actually, the cqutablc t!tie Of the shareholders
III tho form Of stock-ccrtttlcates and the mort
ga-o-tltle. But, 4 there arc two properties and
| cue actually In Connecticut, and three proper
ties and no increase in nrtualty III Massachusetts,
and II popular Judgment Is correct that L. Ia
desirable to eoinprahcni a. many subjects for
assessment In tax.systcm a. possible, why not
Include tho lcgnl title, aud make fnur pruprrtlcsl
and, II the catt1e-yard happened TO be leased,
lEl3EHulu klLkCt Euu lTlHk6 IL lFG EF0pEFI{E$f
Now, oil thts confusion anet Misunderstanding
In Inv, nil these conflicting decisions Of courts,
md mncll OF tho present Injustice wrought In
State taxation, will disappear by abandoning, as
pca Of eo1l.mon sense, tic popular and TO some
extent lcgal idca+ that debts, equitable titles,
and rights to property nfc In tho nature Of cntt.
tse, Or material thinys. a;,. q such ars eapahlo
On this matter tho reasoning Of Judge Foster Ia
80 clear and cogent that It Is difficult to sec how
even m attempt can be madu to rcfnto II. "A
90, ior u lcht il simply IN Obligation resulting
from conclusion OF law, and lis neither yisi-
bio, tangible, nor ponderabte." "only mate
rial thing ran ha1o CORPUS and ,ouly. a corpus
corrus'ts,at constitutes a situs." It is mis-
no!ner, therefore, TO eell . dcbt property. It's
only ian equitable tltie u the property OF tho
ds5s 1s5seF,, aG rsuzs sssts' do: :ts n, = 9a ssg
tho person Of tha owner In bis dom
igilo, though he n.ay traasfcr Il there The
United atatcs Baprcnc Court has not as yet
Out, % far = i has considered il Indirectly il
has decided .tutlQy Fostor's common sense to
be, as II ought 10 be-, good and suprstno law.
Thus. in the caso Of Dfopa ". Kennedy Us Val
has d situs aud folloss tho owner, when It held
that n boni-anl-mostgag form Of HcrcdIt"
was subj lect to cnntscattou bv tho United States
tA tic Statu whcse the norteago~tscbtor resided,
point Of iacL tho boDl and mortgage were
never In tho judicial district OF tho United
states wIera the proceedings iu forfeiture took
peasc, but wcre with the owncr,- within tho
kcbel lincs In the slato oT VirgihIa, during the
entire War, autl where tho contscatlon proceed
lngs ncearretl, and whcru tho Federal colrta, for
ths t!mo being, hal no power Of jurisdiction
over either persons or property Can It uuw b.
raiuc.!, n thu face III this decision, that mort
SaEe.eredtt male, and made made payable, ia ono
0wucr into another Slate, tho State OF hi, lumi-
clcl Again, the sans sourt, Ia tho e7nc Of W.
ttrr. Ultnt Staea u !Haitae<|, hel'& that stock
or shares III tho Michigan southern RallroaI
could he couascascd In N!chlean " notica upon
tho ra!lroaal eonpany. although both the owner
Jurisdiction Of thu court. The Court sall: IA
corporation holds its stock as qua.i-truAtcc Tor
It's stockholders. The scEItco Vi un attachment,
though It is but nDticc, dnds The debt or tho
stoeE III tho hands Of the garn!shec from tho
time of The service, aud thcnrcforth II is potcu-
tiaiIy ~ 0ttasalgu'' These aud other dccls-
Ions enforcing gafnlshmcnt VI debtors eau only
| be understood nui rcconttted with recognized
principles OF law by considering fl3 the Unlfeti