St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1881-02-11

or neglect. There seems to be doubt
in some minds in regard to the deduc-
tiOns allowed by the new law. A part
of the third section reads =
No deduction shall be made in the
list of any person by reason of debts
owing to him, unless such statement
includes the name and place of resi-
dence of each person or firm to whom
lie is so indebted and the amount so
owing by him to each person or firm,
nor on account of his being an endorser
or surety for another; nor shall any
deduction be allowed a taxpayer on
account of joint Indebtedness, except
to the amount which he would be
obliged to pay if all the persons Jointly
bound were to pay equal parts of the
debt.
One or two state papers have taken the
counsel of good lawyers on this Ques-
ton, and their opinion is that the new
law does not nulify the old law on the
subject; therefore, the deduction of
debts secured by mortgages on real es-
tate is not allowed, and the deductions
relate solely to personal property. In
regard to two other questions raised in
relation to the new law, the Woodstock
Standard recently printed an article,
evidently inspired by some legal mind,
that is worthy of attention. The first
question relates to the power of the
state to assess and tax its Taxpayers
on pr sperty located in another state.
Reference is made to a decision made
by the two highest courts in New York
that property located in another state
h. faynI in aru Nnrlr alfhnnnh
a citizen of that state may hold an evil
dence of interest in such property, and
it is inferred that the supreme court of
Vermont would not hold differently in
q similar case. The other question re-
lates to government bonds. 1t will be
seen that tho law calls for statement
of stocks, bonds or other securities ex-
empt from taxation by the state or
United States. The article in the
Standard says, "as to government
bonds the state cannot require the held
er to enumerate them or state how
much he holds although it may refuse
to grant him offset if he has money in
vested in them. They are not taxable
and the state has no control whatever
over them" The writer quotes an
opinion of Chancellor Kent, to show
that the right of taxation in the state
cannot be exercised further than to
subjects over which its sovereign power
extends; the inference is that the state
has no rightful authority to compel in
dividuals to disclose the number and
amount of government securities they
may hold. But the new law on this
subject is perfectly plain, and the list
ers are given no discretionary power in
the matter. If the authority of the
state in the premises is resisted, the
question must be adjudicated in the
courts.
In regard to the prospective results
of the new law, there is, as was to be
expected, some diversity of opinion.
The grand list of the state last year
amounted TO 81 ,003, 10000, of which
the real estate valuation was 81, ll4,-
447 and the personal estate SIS, 037 ,262.
1t is calculated that the new law will
double the real estate valuation and
secure a valuation of personal property
amounting to at least 100000, 900.
These amounts together with the polls,
would make the total grand list about
81 100000. If these expectations are
realized, of course the rate of taxation
state, town, school and municipal
will be largely reduced, and the new
law will thus confer incalculable bene-
fits upon the people of the state.