Telegram-herald., 1890-08-07


o. si.ng tie 8snsr ~ real estate. sh.eA
Is sabject y mortgage Indebtedness.
+ u dedlc tae 4n04nt u said ia5eblsd-
ness from lie value 0f hls property.
and - pay tax upoa strca amount,
ana b caagge tae TAX So paid, a. -
macA Dad aP0a the lace oI Sae mort
gage iDdebte1ness.
Bat haze taoss VINO favor saca a
I method thoroughly studied the Ques-
ton 10 ali is bearings,
10 migat be asked way permit such .
/ deduction upon real estate property
mOrtgsged. and not upon personal prop
ertymortgaged, Ia seeking justice tothe
oaaer of property subject 70 assessment
ana payment OF taxes, why make an
iuvldious distinction between real am
/ persoaalproperty, Again It migat be
asked whether ta.s method wOuid bring
the justice 70 All parties. which IS urged
as the underlying principle OF this
method, A mortgage IS considered
F personal property BY the most. Il not
all Of the States. and As such is liable
10 be assessed for the payment Of taxes
wherever the owner resides, and IN
+ seeking justice for the morigagOr,
might not injustice be done 10 the
owner OF the mortgage, If the owner OF
the mor.gaged property were permitted
20 pay an amount assessed against the
mortgage. and deduct the same from
the mortgage Indebtedness, and the
I mortgage again be assessed for tax
alton, where the owner of the mort
gage resldes2 la such an instance
there would be a clear and IN
/ controvertlb.e case Of double taxa
ton. But it may be SAID that the stat
ute might provide for such case, by
. making it impossible 10 tax the mort
gage but once; that might be possible,
II the owner OF the mortgage
resided III the same State where
the mortsageG property was situated,
otherwise il would be impossible, for a
State can only make laws when shall
be operative within 1t own boundaries.
It can in no wise control the action of
another State; this IS a general prin-
ciple subject TO no exception whatever.
Aud here might be a case for the inter-
ference of the courts, rs they might,
! perhaps, declare illegal a statute which
permitted the owner of real estate,
upon which was 4 mortgage, 10 pay the
tax upon the mortgage and deduct the
same from the mortgage Indebtedness.
Again, assessing real estate at its full
cash value, and also assessing a mort
gage which may be thereon, IS not in
fact. double taxation. To illustrate the
natter Suppose there is real estate,
worth Sl5. 900 upon which is a mortgage
of 5000. In making the assessment
! roll, so 900 worth Of property IS upon
the roll to pay the required tax, where
as, If the mortgage Indebtedness were
deducted from the value of the real es-
tate, there would only be 900 TO pay
the amount required to be raised by
taxation. In the case Of the $40, 900
paying the required amount, the per
centage would be less, than IN the case
Of SIS, 900 paying the required amount.
The amount to be raised by taxation
remains the same in either case. If the
/ SIC, 900 pays the amount, the owner of
the mortgaged premises gets the benefit
of reduced per centage upon the face
value of his assessment.
indebtedness secured by a mort
gage passes from hand to hand in COM
mercal transactions, anything which
impedes itscommcrcal value viii react
against the borrowing class, and the
person lOaning money secured by
mortgage viii always secure himself
against any impediment to the CONNER
cial value of his mortgage. by charging
higher rate per cent for the money
loaned. There are other ideas than
those herein mentioned, which would
materially affect the commercial value
Of real estate mortgages were they
deducted from the value of the prop
erty upon which they rest, and the
owner of the property allowed to pay
the tax therein, aud TO deduct the
same from the face value Of the
mortgage, yet these will do to think