The Black Hills union. [volume] (Rapid City, Pennington County, Dakota [S.D.]) 1889-1904, 1895-03-15

SECRETARY 70 KEEP BOOK OF BYLAWS.
These bylaws shall remain in the possession
OF the secretary Of the company.
Taxing Mortgages.
Editor Union: Inotice IN your paper
OF recent date, a criticism of my posi-
ton In the senate, on the taxation Of
mortgages. As indicated by the stars
at bottom, the article Is a communica-
ton and / have no doubt OF the honesty
OF the writer, but | must say he is the
victim OF a delusion. The measure
complained OF was introduced by Mr..
Pease, a republican, and did not re-
celve over nine or ten votes when it
came up for consideration; half Of the
popullsts IN the senate showed their
good sense by voting against the meas
ure. No greater calamity could have
happened to the people Of South Oak
ota than to have had the bill pass.
You must bear in mind that the law
could not apply to mortgages now on
our land, as would be retroactive in it's
effects and unconstitutional, besides all
mortgages contain a stipulation, that
the mortgager sholl pay all taxes.
Now let us see where we would have
been, had this bill passed. Three fourths
OF the land in the state is mortgaged,
and these mortgages are coming due,
not one in ten will have the money to
pay them off without borrowing. Say
money Ia now ~loaning at ten per cent
without the tax. Does n one believe
that money lenders will loan at the
same rate when the mortgage is to be
taxed 8, 4, or 5 per cent as the case may
be? Why wound they do SO when they
can go to Nebraska, Kansas, North Oak
ota, or Iowa and loan their. money at
the same rate, and be free from the
tax? They don't have to loan none
here, nor can you make them do so by
law. Had that bill become a law Just
one OF two things would have happened,
either the m%ortgaged farmers would
have lost their farms, by reason OF not
being able to get money to renew or
they would have had to pay the current
rate OF taxes added, the tax would
have been shifted onto the borrower in
increased interest. If the mai with
money to loan was prevented from do
ing this by the usury laws then he would
Jake his money to some other place
whaPn h0 nn,Nll not foo 81 ol1npc, ~ 4 -
That this position is correct may be
proven by hundreds of tests. In the
city OF New York, a few years ago. they
taxed the city bonds, and it was all they
could do to sell them at par with a per
cent interest; after the tax was taken off
In less than six month they sold at par
with 3h per cent interest,
Colorado tried taxing mortgages and
the present legislation repealed the law
and the populists were the prime movers
IN the repeal. | believe in that grand
principle OF equal right to all and spe-
clal privileges to none'' and yield to
none in it's advocacy. But let us look at
this from another point Of view, Sup
pose, we will say, one farmer loans
another $4,000 and takes a mortgage
on his land. The assessor comes along
and the first farmer gives in to be as.
sessed the $1,000 note secured by the
mortgage, as the law now requires HIM
to do, then he goes to the other man.
and there he again assesses the first
farmer Oh the $1,000 mortgage. Would
this be just? would it not be double tax
ation3 Yes, but you say he burgers
himself and does not give in the note.
Whether this is true or not we have
nothing to do, 8 long al the Jaw requires
all property taxed alike. When the peo-
pie have judgement enough to tax land
value. only, all these difficulties will
have past away but not before.
1t is true that a man with a mortgage
for half it's worth or more is taxed for
omething he does not really own. Blu t
this is a seperate question from that of
taxing mortgages. proper exemptions
would be just. Now Mr.. Editor / have
no %appoligy to offer for my position on
that question, l only wish to be under
stood, and will say to my critic, that
had he been as dilligent in his study of
this question for the truth as he seems
RI ho uo hoon for copofbipo n cr,%;o;eo