Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-01-22
SUNDAY SCHOOLS.
For the Dispaich.l

A has 81 900 in money and pays in taxes
$40, b has \ 900 in land and pays III taxes
SO and the $4,000 of values pay go.
Then b bOrrows AS money and gives hlm
mortgage on his land for it. Under the
present laws A Will pay as taxes on his
81 900 mortgage $40, i will pay on the
81 600 in land $40, and b will pay on the
81 900 money borrowed $40, and the tax
collector gets $50.
The question is. Has this transaction Gre
ated a new $1,000 value that did not exist
before or is one of the former values taxed
double?
If it has created a new value then A and
| Il between them are now worth $1,000 IN
stead of only -, 600 as before, and all that
Virginia's landowners have got to do to
secure enormous riches for themselves and
relieve the dear old State from her inan-
ciaI difficulties is to execute mortgages on
their lands to each other al infHittm.
But if. as is manifest, no new value has
been created and A and Il still have be-
tween them only tine same $4,000 worth OF
property, then It is equally clear that one
of those $1,000 values has been taxed
double. II can't be the money, for that
only pays $40 in either case; SO that 1t
must necessarily be the land value that
paws twice. The Constitution of Virginia
saws that taxation shall be equal and uni
form and all property, both real and per-
sonal, shall be taxed in proportion to Its
value"
is it conformable to the Constitution,
then, to make 81 900 value of land pay $50,
while 81 900 value IN money pays $40! or
will il still be contended in spite of the
absurdity that the placing a mortgage on
the land has in some mysterious way
created new property value that did not
before exist!
This. the simplest kind of mortgage
transaction, was chosen as an illustration
for the purpose of avoiding the fog of
legal technicalitles and nice distinctions,
which often so confuse those who attempt
to discuss this subject that the land-holder
himself. though he feels the burden, cam
not perceive the source of his woe. nor
understand how his taxes are so out Of
proportion TO the value of his estate and
the size of his income. 80 FAR as L have
heard the arguments in favor OF the pres
ent law the result is only an attempt TO
draw back around the subject these mists
Of confusing technicalities; and. however,
those who deny the existence of any
double taxation of the land value may
obscure the matter with legal dust or re-
solutelv turn away their eyes. yet the con-
seriousness that it is there, and, like Ban
quo's ghost, it will not down peryades
their reasoning and seems to leave IN their
own minds q suspicion that the glst OF the
proposition has not been touched
The limits of a newspaper article do not
permit my replying to many of the points
on which the gentlemen on the other side
rely. | can only advert to one or two OF
the strongest.
Mr.. Isaac II. Christian says: -" Is has not
transferred to A any interest in his land
worth 81 900. He simply agrees totOrfelt TO
A that amount Of IT If he fails to pay him"
Let US see: Strike the land out of exist
ence, as by old BiackstOne's wlld-fire, and
what is the mortgage worth! Let HOOD
greatly iniure the land and Is not the value
of the mortgage reduced? Let cut TIM
Der or commit waste as he before had
right TO do, and will not the courts for the
protection of A's interest stop him by IN
junction. Now let A and b offer them
selves AZ sureties on an Official bond, Il
having no other property than the mort
gagged land and A mono but the mortgage.
A is at once accepted as good for 81, 900
and B is rejected, though III possession OF
81 900 worth of land. The mortgage A got
from b makes his estate. worth Sl,OOO IN
the eve OF the law, while it makes BIS
worth nothing. How can these things DO
if Mr.. Christians statement Is correct?
Further on Mr.. Christian argues that the
land-holder is not unJustly or unequally
taxed, because all other property-holders
are treated in the same way, yet in another
place he adverts to the fact that the law
allows the money-lender TO deduct the
debts he owes from the value of his bonds.
&c, and requires him only TO pay taxes on
the residue This is all that Is asked for
the land-holder. Let him, too, deduct the
amount he owes on his land from its value
and pay taxes only on the remainder. Put
him on the same favorable footing that is
accorded the money-lender and cease to
have one law for Shylock and another and
a harsher for his struggling debtor. We
only ask that the spirit of the Constitution
be observed and that fair and equal treat
ment may be accorded to all.
Ii. N. MAGRUDER.
Eastman, "a. January 20, 1890.