The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1893-10-27
ANOTHER REPUBLICAN DECEPTION

2 lioltO Ol. the fSpuDucdn party Iur
nished by one of it's foremost repre-
sentatves-John j. ingalls,. Tha
seems to have been adopted by SOM
members of the party in their grea
anxiety to capture this year the Legis
/ lative Assembly of Utah. All kinds O
quirks and lodges and misrepresenta
tons are being resorted to in orde
) to effect that purpose.
Brushing aside for the present thei1
t clap-trap about free trade" hos
tility to silver" 'hatred of home in
dustries" and similar falsehoods which
} they use to deceive uniformed voters
, we wish to draw attention to another
bit of Republican duplicity repeated il
several places in the legislative cam
paign, that they may get there"
It is represented that the provision
of law exempting mortgages from
taxation was a Democratic measure
and that it was passed in the interest
of the money lenders as against the
borrowers on real estate security. The
object of this is to prejudice voters
against the Democratic candidates for
the legislature in favor of the Re
publican candidates.
We ask all candid people, no matter
what may be their political proclivi-
ties, to examine the facts and en-
deavor to arrive at the truth. Among
the people of Utah no party ought
to be permitted to prevail by using
the weapons of falsehood. The truth
ought to be acceptable and, fortu-
nately, in this case it is easy to demon
strate.
At the last session of the legislature,
after very close investigation and an
earnest desire to do that which should
be just and equitable, the legislature
decided to add to the exemption list
of taxable property, mortgages and
trust deeds of real and personal pro
/ perty and the notes and debts
secured thereby whenever such pro-
perty, held as security. is taxable"
This was recommended by promi-
nent men of both parties. 1t was not
party measure. 1t was opposed for
some time by some of the Democratic
members We believe the Territorial
Board of Equalization advised it, a
majority of whom were Republicans.
The Republican Governor was in it's
favor and approved the bill. What
ever may be its merits or dement's,
it is only a miserable trick to try to
make it party issue.
But let us see whether it was right
or wrong. When mortgages and trust
deeds were taxed, the property owner
paid both the tax on his property and
the tax on the money advanced on any
mortgage upon it. Thus he was
doubly taxed. For the holder of the
mortgage or trust deed took care to
make the borrower responsible for
all taxes assessed because of the mort
gage. To prove this we refer to the
form of trust deeds used by banks and
money lenders, a copy Of which is be-
fore us now. In it the borrower not
only agrees to warrant and defend the
property against all persons law
fully claiming the same or any part
thereof" but ito pay the note ac-
cording to the tenor and effect there
of, and all taxes and assessments
which may be lawfully assessed upon
this trust deed and the debt thereby
secured"
It was to relieve the debtor and to
prevent double taxation that the ex-
emption provision as to mortgages and
trust deeds was added to the revenue
law Under the old law, too, non-resi-
dents of the territory could escape tax
alton on money lent in this territor5
and secured by notes and mortgages,
because under Section coll of the Com.
piled Laws. as construed by the courts,
such property was to be assessed and
the tax levied in the county in which |
the money holder resided A tax on
the money lender living out of the ter |
ritory who held mortgage on pro-
perty in the territory could not be
collected of him, and that was not IN
der a Democratic law either.
Which is better for the property |
holder whose property is mortgaged? |
To pay taxes on his property and the
tax on the mortgage as well, or to be
relieved of the latter? If the amount
of debt secured by mortgage were to
be deducted from the assessment on
the property, still the borrower would
have to pay the full tax under the old
law, because the lender secured him
self by the provision on the deed of
trust or mortgage, which we have
quoted
There are of course two sides to
this question. But though we have
placed before our readers the side
which prevailed in the legislature,
leading to the exemption we have
cited, it does not justify the assertion
that it was a Democratic measure