The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-03-22

In regard TO many public matters those
who oppose action appear on the scene too
late. This is particularly the case with leg
islation. 1t was the case with the opponents
of new court involving the building of
new courthouse in the northern rart of
the State. The bill was well through the
Legislature when the opposition appeared.
Even the veto Of the Governor did not check
its progress. because members were commit
ted to it. 1t must have been known months
before the meeting of the Legislature that
such legislation would be asked for. When
II became known to the opponents that such
legislation would be asked. they should have
stated their opposition. If it were as strong
and positive as the reports of subsequent
meetings indicate, the measure would have
been defeated The same remarks apply to
other cases where local legislation was op-
posed.
AT the present time papers in several
counties are criticising the act of the Leg
isature which exempts 500 OF the mort
cages on real estate from taxation. The
papers in county assert that the ex-
emption will take three millions from the
tax duplicate, and those of another as
sert, on the opinion of the county officers,
that it will reduce the value Of taxables a
million dollars and render an increase of
tie levy necessary. Doubtless these repre-
sensations are exaggerated, but If the ex-
emption Is a real injustice. why did not
county papers and officers protest while the
Legislature was in session? Senator Ball
presented the exemption bill early in the
session When 1t was presented several
papers called attention to its provisions.
Members of the Board of Tax Commission
ers informed men about the Legislature of
the probable effects of the measure. 1t was
discussed in committees. When it came be-
fore the House Mr.. Williams. of the ways
and mean{ committee, and two or three
others explained the bill and opposed it, and
the Journal called attention to it's provisions
and its probable results. If at this time,
when opposition might have been effective.
county papers and county officers had op-
posed it. the bill might have been defeated.
The only recourse now is to attack its con-
stitutionality in the courts.
The principle of the measure is defensible
on the same grounds that the exemptions
of personal property are defended. The &C.
cupant Of piece of real estate is the own
of only as much OF it's value as is not
represented by a mortgage upon which he
pays interest. Such being the case, the tax
alton should be divided between the person
who gave the mortgage and the person who
holds 1t in proportion to their respective
shares of the value. If the real estate is
valued at $1,000 and one-half of ii is the
property of person who has furnished half
the money with which it was purchased or
which represents half its value he should
be made to pay the tax his part. That is
the law in Massachusetts, and probably in
some other States. Under the provisions
of the Ball act two pieces of real estate,
worth the same in the market, have differ
ent values when appraised for taxation.
The one which is owned by one party, If
both properties are worth 5000 each in the
market, pays a tax on 5000, while the
piece which is owned by two parties, mort
gageor and mortgage, is taxed for but
$1,000. A law based upon equity will tax
values in real estate to the parties who
appear by the records to be the actual own
ers. The exemption law destroys certain
amount of real estate so far as taxation is
oonoarped