The Portland daily press., 1890-09-24
THE PARTY OF LEG STATESMEN.
concord IN. HN Mnnifnrl
PERSONAL PROPERTY.
Does II Largely Escape Taxation?-
Notes and Bonds not Property but
Evidences of Debt.

To the Editor of the Press:
In your discussion of the taxation question
you say sit Is alleged that large part of the
personal property owned In this state is con-
cealed," and escapes taxation. To discover
this property and bring it to light SO 1t can
be taxed is the problem to be set before the
lawmakers for solution. With due defer
ence to the authors of the allegation. must
say 1t seems to me that it Is absurd. Per-
sonal property is visible to the naked eye
1t is not usually and cannot be buried In the
ground or hid in closet. 1t takes up too
much room to be thus concealed A look
into the stores, manufactures, warehouses
and other buildings in the city will in gen.
eral show all the property there is Lere.
Ii all the real estate and all the personal
property which can be seen by any faithful
assistant assessor is taxed to the party who
has 1t In his possession on day fixed In each
year and the same rule is applied in all other
towns and cities only small amount Of
property will escape taxation. A few arti-
cles like diamonds which can be easily con-
cealed may be omitted but the proportion
which these bear to the bulk of the property
In the state will be small.
In general the real estate and the visible
goods and chattels which may be seen and
taxed without great difficulty comprise all
the wealth Of the county. And if all this is
ascertained and made to bear its fair share
Of the public burdens, all basis for the talk
about concealed property and tax dodgers
vanishes.
Then, Says an assessor, you would only
tax the real estate and visible goods and
chattels in the city to the persons having
them In possession" Ireply In the affirma-
tive. why, how absurd says the assessor
half million but owns in the city only the
house he lives in and the furniture
In it will pay the little tax on that
and the rest of his great wealth
will go scot free. Whyw continued he with
could get into the safe deposit vault we
should find in his box more than two and
perhaps three hundred thousand dollars
worth OF stocks, bonds, notes, mortgages,
and other securities on which he pays no
Why should not he be made to disclose
this property?" And with increasing tact he
continues. 1.-THE talk about the impossibility
Of concealing property is arrant nonsense
Mr.. 4. and Mr.. +. and others have thousands
OF dollars worth of securities and are not
taxed on two per cent of them"
Here is seen the precise reason for the error
In regard to concealed property. These
stocks, bonds, securities, mortgages and
other evidences of Indebtedness are regarded
by the assessors as property, but they are
not property at all. They are only evidences
of ownership, or title deeds to property which
not only can be seen and taxed but which in
the possession OF other persons is actually
taxed according to its value.
The illustration of this fact is easy and has
often been repeated. Mr.. A. has three
thousand dollars and Mr.. b. one thousand,
or together they have four thousand. Each
buys house worth two thousand. A. pays
cash and lends B. one thousand so he can
pay for his. taking mortgage on BIS house.
Each pays tax on his house, making for
both tax on four thousand dollars worth
of property, all there is.
The assessor however wants to tax the
mortgage making FIVE In all. IL A. conceals
the existence Of the mortgage he is called
tax dodger. Why should the total property
pay tax on this imaginary thousand which
has no actual existence? Whether the tax
on BIS mortgaged house should all be paid by
d. OF divided between himself and A. is
question 1t Is not necessary to discuss here.
U ~, present enquiry is whether after the
a su TAX on the houses has once been paid by
s sun.hy should be compelled to pay
nnother TAX upon the evidence of his claim
upon non the same property
dohtns same principle governs all cases of in
property. A railroad consists of itS ran
cnise' track, and certain personal propertv
al u WHICH can pc seen and assessed for
taxation; Inc individual Stakeholder or
Dondhoider has an interest in the road IN the
extent shown by his shares of stock and
bonds. o'ooA anu
Ii the company pays a tax upon the ent,ro
property upon fair valuation, the individnai
stakeholder or b0ndholder ought NOT To nav
any tax upon his stock or bonds because he
property represented by them has alreadv
paid its tax. The dividends of the stoct.
holders are reduced precisely by the amonnt
Of the tax paid by the company and aithonob
the bonds bear a fixed rate of Interest The
price which they bear in the marked ia OF
fected by the taxation. III the companv neus
the tax the price will be so much higher and
the interest so much less so that in reality tha
purchaser of the.bond, In paving en- wn SnD
more when he lbuys it, pays the tsx 70 tba
company which afterwards paws # to the
state. w 'no
If Mr.. d. owned all the stock and all tho
bonds OF the railroad company, and this was
all the property he did own, and If in the
name OF the company he paid tax on ali its
property, which is in fact all his own. will If
be claimed that he ought to pay another
similar tax upon his stock and bonds?
Certainly If he owns the entire road with
out the intervention of stock or bonds and
pays the tax assessed upon its fair valua-
ton all MS property pays Its tax. Now If
MS ownership In the road is only partial and
Is evidenced by stock and bonds, and the