Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1878-11-19
rAxAr1oN OF MORTGAGES.


esges or deeds of trust. q
Cnder our laws the State looks to the
property itself for an income, whether
it be real or personal, and without re-
ference to Membranes OF any charac-
ter whatever. Its demand must be sat
isfied first, and the party in possession
must pay ii he desires to maintain con-
troll OF the property. The question OF
title must be fought out between those
having claims. The State only wants a
per centum on its market value, and to
this extent is the owner of all property
within its jurisdiction, and will offer it
for sale irrespective OF any other title or
titles, to satisfy its annual assessment.
The question between the mortgagor,
the mortgage and the State is not one
of title. The State does not respect the
title of the one more than the other,
and if if collects the tax by sale of the
land il takes the title ofthe one rs much
as the other. The disadvantage is in
the possession only. Whether the title
be in the possessor or not, he must ac-
count to the State. He may waive all
claim to the property, other than the
right of possession, but the agent OF the
State will take his personal property to
satisfy tax on the real, il the one is
found upon the other.
The whole controversy resolves itself
into one rs to whether the State, instead
of looking to the property itself for u
revenue, should be compelled first to
hunt up the owner or owners OF each
piece OF property, determine the legality
of their titles, and assess the tax
upon their respective titles or Interests,
in proportion to their several values.
This is the question so far as the State
is concerned. Now, as between the
mortgagor and mortgage, it is claimed by
the former that when he borrows sum
of money, giving his land rs security, he
depreciates the value of his title in that
land to the amount Of the sum borrowed,
or, in fact, temporarily parts with the
title to that amount of value i'll the land.
But he must continue to pay tax on the
whole original title, a. well rs interest on
the sum borrowed, while the mortgage
is invested with part OF the title, on
which he is receiving an income and
pays no tax.
In one case, at least, such system
works hardship to the mortgag9r, and
that is when the mortgage is given to
secure purchase money. Here the
mortgagor is in possession but has not
yet acquired absolute title to the pro-
perty. He has title only to the extent
OF the actual payment made, and the
mortgage has in effect never parted
with more, although purporting to have
conveyed the legal title. Yet the mort
gagor being in possession, is subject to
the double liability OF paying taxes on
what he has not yot acquired, and in
terest on the debt to that extent.
But when the mortgagor has once
acquired absolute title to piece OF
land, and chooses to cucumber it with 4
loan, the case, in ourview, is essentially
different. He has simply elected to in
vest the value of his land, or part OF it,
in something that will yield him greater
profit, and which perhaps by certain
manipulations, will entirely escape tax
alton. 1t is at his own option whether
he shall pay single tax to the State on
his land or the additional interest TO
a capitalist who gives him the
temporary use ofshis capital. 1t is a
great consideration for a man to be able
occasionally to turn a permanent in
vcstment temporarily into cash and
rice rerso, and it is one for which most
men are willing to pay. And it is only
when he has acquired Il clear title 10
the property that he can do this, which
marks the difference between pur-
chase money mortgage and one made
upon loan.
There Isa very apparent hardship in
the one case, but in the other it cannot
be said to be oppressive unless the &C.
casion for the mortgage is one of neces-
sity and not of speculation. There have
been and always will be difficulty in
fixing q system OF taxation that will
work exact justite TO all parties in this
connection.
The capitalist has the advantage and
will maintain it in despite OF any stat
utory regulation. Ii his mortgage is
taxed, he will increase the rate OF inter
est. And ii the law limits the interest
he shall charge, sol that he cannot obtain
his demand, he will find some other in
vestment for his money, so that in any
event the hardship will iall upon the
man who must borrow. We do not see
that the matter can be any better ar
ranged by law than now, unless it be
upon the question of possession. There
might be changes made in this feature
of the law that would work relief in
many cases where it ought to be given,
and which at some future time We will
cndeavor to point out.