The Iowa plain dealer. [volume] (New Oregon, Howard County, Iowa) 1867-1895, 1885-10-01
LarIabec asa Farmer.


Larlabec as a Farmer.
In September 1879, All exam
nation Of the mortgage records Of
Fayettc county by Mr.. Hutchinson
at that time recorder, showed VIM.
Larrabec to be the owner of m
satisfied mortgages on real and
personal property in Fayctte coun-
ty, exceeding in amount $780,
900. A recent examination shows
the amount of nnsatisfied mort
cages since recorded to be ST.
go, making the aggregate Sls4,-
go, less what may have been col
lccted on the above named amount.
In 1879 Mr.. Larrabec was as
scssed and paid taxes on account
l, Of monies and credits $4,000 each
subsequent year, up to and i'll
GLIDING 1885, his assessment for
monies and credits was but $4,000.
Who pays the taxes on the proper.
ty represented by these mortgages!
is the important question to be
solved. Evidently it is not Mr..
Larrabee, nor are his monies and
credits all invested in these mort
cages, for it is the opinion Of those
who know him best that he has
ample basis for his $4,000 to $4,000
assessment for monies and credits
outside of these. Nor would we
intimate or insinuate that he had
violated any law or perjured him.
self by not giving in these mort
cages, or the value they represent
ed, for taxation. Assuming then
that he has not perjured himself
nor illegally evaded taxation on
account Of said mortgages, who is
responsible for the laws chat thus
protect money loaners capital from
its just proportion Of taxation!
For eighteen consecutive years
it is claimed Mr.. Larrabce has
ably and efficiently discharged the
duties Of chairman and the great
party leader in the senate. On
that officer more than on any other
one man rests tho duty and obi
cation Of seeing that the burdens
OF taxation arc justly, wisely and
equitably distributed among the
people.
It is not church property OK
emptions alone that he has shown
a dispositionto favor, but the money
lenders mortgage interest as we'll,
and when the injustice Of this is
pointed out, the prompt response
is that taxing the mortgages in
terest would be taxing the same
property twice, as the mortgagor,
or fee owner, is also taxed the
same rs if he owned the property
free from incnmbrance. True, he
would be under the law as it is;
but with the same amount of
shrewdness that could frame a tax
law to unjustly tax the nominal
owner of eighty acres Of land worth
$1,000 while the real owner of it
under $1,000 mortgage pays
nothing, it would be easy to frame
q law So that each would be COM
PEELED to pay in proportion to his
interest in the property. Six
years ago the Union advised Mr..
Larrabee just how a bill could be
framed to secure just and equal
taxation Of both the mortgagor's
and mortgages interest in pro-
perty, and be effective. But his non-
action has been a continuous vote
OF NO against the taxation of his
S1s0,0OO mortgage interest in
property in Fayettc county.
If such bill had come up in
the senate we have no doubt but
Mr.. Whiting would be now ar
raigncd as voting against Larrabce
and his mortgaged property ex-
emption, and Mr.. Larrabee would
be lionized rs much for his vote
and influence in favor Of this cx.
emption as he has been for favor
ing church property exemption,
which nobody proposes to disturb.
-[Fayettee County Union.