The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1898-11-30

minated in a,supreme effort to secure
its adoption into the laws of the State.
After a long and exhaustive hearing on
the merits of the measure, in committee |
and on the floor of the House, the |
Douglass bill was denied third read
ing. Although a strong effort was
made again in 1886 and 1883 to secure
the enactment of law taxing to the
mortgageor and MORTGAGE, separately,
according to his interest in piece OF
mortgaged real estate, the impractic-
ability of the proposition, and the
abuses to which it would open the
door, had become so well understood,
even by the farmers themselves, for
whose benefit the scheme was plausi-
bly, designed and to whose interests the
considerations in its favor were adroit-
ly addressed, that no measure of this
kind has since had any chance Of be-
coming law, or even of passing the
House of Representatives, in which it
would naturally find what support it
could ex pect.
The discussions upon this subject in
the sessions of the eighties were a
source of nlightenment, and the vari-
Gus bills to "remedy" the alleged Gin
justice" began to find among intelli-
gent, thinking farmers themselves,
some of their most strenuous oppo-
nents. The practical working of sim
liar legislation in Massachusetts, en-
acted in 1880, has had, also, powerful
influence in arraying the farmer class
against the proposed remedy" There
the MORTGAGE has had inserted into the
body of his mortgage a contract bind
ing the mortgageor to pay the taxes on
both his own interest in the mortgaged
premises and also on the mortgagee's
interest; and, further, if the law of
1880 should be repealed the mortgageor
has been compelled to bind himself, in
that event, to pay the tax not only on
the full assessed value of the mort
gagged premises, but to continue to pay
on the mortgagee's interest, also. Thus
the Massachusetts mortgageor has been
bound, hand and foot, and the fact that,
if the law of 1880 should be repealed,
he would be compelled, by his contract,
to pay what would be in reality double
taxation, has built up among the mort
gageors natural and powerful opposi-
ton to repeal. The mortgage, under
the pious plea of helping the mort
gageor, has managed to escape taxation
entirely; and when it has been propos-
ed to repeal the law, he has pulled the
string and this body of mortgageors,
whom he has bound hand and foot by
the contract in the mortgage, rises up
in terror-stricken protest against the
proposed repeal.
So would it be in Vermont. Human
nature here is not essentially different
from that in Massachusetts. The bor-
rover needs money. The lender will
will supply him but the borrower must
sign contract to pay the taxes on the
interest of both the borrower and the
lender in the real estate that is put up
as security, or the needed loan will not
be forthcoming. Here, as in Massa-
chusetts, this would be the practical
result under the legislation proposed.
The binding force of contract cannot
be destroyed by State law. Whatever
hardship the Vermont borrower may
be suffering now, his last state would
be worse than the first, if the law ask
ed in his behalf should be enacted.
And, furthermore, the abuses to which
any measure that has yet been offered
to relieve the borrower, in many other
ways than those touched upon, would
operate to his injury and to the advan-
tage of a class of men who need no
legislative assistance in safeguarding
their interests.
In the matter of the interest of the
parties to a mortgage in the property
mortgaged, as regards taxation, it lie
not at all matter Of double taxation,
1t is entirely a matter of reasonable OF
justifiable taxation, and the argumen,
is conclusively in favor Of this view Of
the matter. But it would not be diff
cult to show that double taxation, pure
and simple, is not always and under al
circumstances unreasonable and unjus
tifiable. 1t could not be commended tina,
John Does farm could be justly taxed
at twice the rate ON Richard Roe's, ir
the same town, by the same set of ap
praisers. If, however, John Doe in
vests his money in sugar stocks in New
York, and maintains his residence il
Montpelier, and Richard Roe puts hi
money into a manufacturing enterpris,
in Montpelier, the contention nigh
reasonably be made that John DOT
| 81 o,,lI now tovoa haso IN h;a ;a.aat