The herald., 1896-10-06
AMENDMENT NO. /


BILE to listen with patience, to intelligent
men. whose necessities compel them to
borrow money, advocating the repeal by
vote at the coming election of that por-
tion of our state constitution. which alb
sOlutely furnishes them the only pro-
lection they have ever had against the
Unsuitable greed of the most heartless
class OF money lenders
Prior to the adoption of that part of
our present constitution we are now
asked to repeal, the following Is
clause that was usually inserted in
mortgages. as will be seen by anybody
who Will turn to the records of old
mortgages made before 1875 to wit:
"rhe mortgagee is hereby empowered
to pay any taxes or assessments that
may be laid upon or claimed from the
mortgaged property, or upon this mort
gage, of the money secured thereby,
and all liens thereon at any time and
without notice to the mortgagor; and
the mortgagor and the mortgaged prop
erty are hereby made liable to the
mortgage for the amount so paid"
etc.
The above is copied from mortgage
made in 1877 by one Ybarra, to one
Sherburn, recorded at pages 1923,
book 81, Los Angeles records of mort
cages. And the books are e. of mort
cages of the same kind made prior to
the adoption Of that constitutional pro-
vision we are now asked to vote pgainst.
Before voting to revive and legalize
such mortgages as the above, let us SER
iously consider how such a mortgage
operates.
Here was q poor man-we will sup
pose-who owned a little homestead
worth $1,000, being all the property he
had-but he owed debt Of $500. In or
der to pay this debt he borrowed $500
from a money lender and mortgaged his
homestead as security. The money
lender inserted in his mortgage Just
such clause as the above, compelling
the borrower to pay the taxes on the
money loaned. Now, under these con-
ditions, how much property did this
borrower have to pay taxes on? Well
in the first place, the law would conf
pei him to pay taxes on the full value
of his land as was always done under
the old constitution, no difference how
heavily 1t was mortgaged. That would
be $1,000. In the second place, his con-
tract with the money lender would COM
pei him to pay taxes on the amount of
money borrowed, namely $500. Total,
$780, .s
Thus, while the borrower was in fact
worth but $500, he was compelled by
the combined force of the law and the
mortgage, to pay taxes on just three
while the MORTGAGE, who was sucking
all the cream from his property, paid
not one cent Of taxes.
1t was to remedy this crying evil that
section 5. article 13, of our new constitu-
ton was adopted, wherein 1t is pro-
vided that:
"Section 5-Every contract hereafter
made, by which debtor is obliged to
pay any tax, or assessment on money
Jna
trust, or other lien, shall, as to any
interest specified therein, and as to such
tax or assessment be null and void"
Now this is one of the provisions of
our present constitution that the money
borrowing classes of our citizens are
being urged to repeal by their votes at
the coming election!
Can it be possible that they will do it?
Can 1t be possible that intelligent men.
who are driven by necessity to borrow
money even to pay their taxes, are SO
full and overfowing with generosity
towards their weather. neighbors that
they will insist on a constitutional
amendment actually inviting an imposi-
ton upon themselves, of triple taxa
ton, in order that those who are far
better able to pay their taxes, may es-
cape, and go. scot free from all taxa
tion?
And what is the plea that is set UP. In
behalf of this most extraordinary con-
stitutional amendmUat? Why, the plea
is that as long as we make the money
lender pay taxes on the money he loans,
he will be compelled to charge more In
terest in order to enable him to meet
his tax bills. But If this Is good
reason why the money lender should
be exempt from paying tax bills. why
Is 1t not just as good reason why he
should be exempt from paying his meat
bills, his grocery bills, his doctors bills
and all other kinds Of bills? The fair
presumption is that money lenders. JUST
like other people, have little or no use
for money, except to,pay bills Of one kind
or another. So that If we would adopt
constitutional amendment relieving
money lenders from all obligations to
pay bills of any kind, they might per-
haps be able to reduce the rate of In
But whether they would do it or, not
is quite another question. The only re-
suit to be hoped for, from the adoption
of the proposed constitutional amend
ment, is the re-establishment of that un-
just and infamous system Of double and
triple taxation upon the borrowers or
money that disgraced our state under
the old constitution, in order to entirely
exempt from taxation a class OF people
who are the best able. and who In justice
ought to bear the chief burdens OF gov
ernment.
ZACH MONTGOMERY.
Los Angeles. Cal. Oct. 2, 1896.
THE WATER COMPANY AND THE
CTTv ATTORNEY