Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1893-04-07
FARM VALUES AND DOUBLE TAXATION.

FARM VALUES AND DOUBLE TAXATION.
The st. Johnsbury Republican reprints
our remarks on the decline of farm val
ues, and says:
This is entirely true, as far as it goes,
but it doesn't go quite far enongh. The
Vermont farmers who own their farms
cannot Justly complain of the decline In
values but the trouble is that one-half
(and If the truth were to be known prop
ably more than onehalf) of the farmers
do not own their farms. Many of these
unfortunate tillers of the soil bought
their farms on mortgage years ago when
prices were high; and now they find that
after many wears of unremitting toll and
self-denial their property is not worth the
equity. That's where the trouble with
the farmers comes in. A farmer bought
his farm for $4,000 and gave a mortgage
for $1,000; in the course of tint he re-
duced the mortgage TO $500; he now
finds that his farm isn't worth the Sl5OO
which he owes on it there are hundreds
of such cases in this immediate vicinity,
and thousands in the State at large. Ana
in many and many case old age has
Overtaken the farmer In the course of his
hopeless struggle, and unless he is for
tunate enough TO have children who have
gone into some other business and pros
pered, the alms-hOuse is his inevitable
doom. And will the REGISTER and 9th
ers interested please note the fact that
our robber State encourages and helps
these poverty farmers by making
them pay taxes on their farms, of which
they do not really own one cents worth
The picture which our contemporary
draws is trine highly colored perhaps,
but it is in the main fairly accurate.
The number of mortgages shown by the
census returns is undoubtedly larger
than it should be, as there are on the
books of every town clerk in the State
more or less of them that ought to be
discharged, but never were. Neverthe-
less there are mortgages enough on Yer
mont farms. But admitting the fact,
and conceding also the further fact that
some farms are not today worth the
fraction of the original cost still unpaid,
we fail to see what is to be done about
it or how the farmers are worse off than
others in the several communities who
made poor Investments. 1t is quite like
in war time mills that are not worth half
the purchase price. In other words. the
shrinkage did not affect farmers alone
all owners of property suffered. The
reason that the farmers side of the story
is heard so much more frequently than
any one else's is because there are more
farmers IN the State. The man who in
vested in land when prices were high
had to take his chances of success or
failure, just as did every one who embark
ed then in other business than farming.
If he has failed of achieving success, he
is entitled to pity. But we do not see
any clear way out of it. Mourning
will not help the burdened agricultursts
nor will continual efforts to make them
think they are the most oppressed of the
States Inhabitants benefit either them or
the State.
AS to double taxation, the second point
made by the Republican. 1t goes with
out saying that our system of taxation
works injustice, but it seems to puzzle
the wise men who make laws for the
commonwealth to get over the difficulty.
If the Republican or any one can suggest
plan that will work, there ought to be
no serious obstacle in the way of trying
it. The farmers would not object, GER
tainly, and as they always compose a
majority of the legislature, they could
unquestionably be persuaded to pass any
measure of the sort that commended
itself to their judgment.