Mexico weekly ledger., 1900-11-01
HON. c. F. CLARK.
He is Strong for constitutional iAmend.
ment No. 8 and Gives His
Reasons.
To the Editor of the Ledger.

4tVuoOAps
To the Editor OF the Ledger
MEXICO, Mo-, Oct. 26.-In your
daily of October. 23d / read with con-
siderable interest an article Of nearly
three columns in length from Mr..
Geo. Robertson, in which he tried In
many ways to convince the debtor
classes that 1t is much better for them
TO pay the taxes on all they own and
all they owe than IL is to require the
creditor classes to pay a Just and
equal proportion Of the burdens of
taxation on their holdings. i denounce
such policy as a positive violation Of
the principles of this government, a
slap at the Declaration lof Indepen-
dence, and blur on the principles of
Democracy, for If Democracy means
anything 1t means ''equal rights to all
and special privileges to none" Mr..
Robertson, in the first paragraph, of his
article, did not fairly represent the
proposed amendment when he made
the following illustration "If A
ownes farm worth $1,000 and bor-
rows 81 900 upon it from B, the $1,000
equity remaining in 1t shall be assess
ed to him and he shall pay the taxes
upon it and the mortgage owned by B
shall be assessed to him, thereby theo-
retically assessing the farm at its
full value"
Again, at the top of the second
column he. made this statement which
is along the same line: "The chances
are that for many years to come,
mortgaged property would be assessed
at or near its full value, and property
not mortgaged would continue at its
present valuation"
7 am surprised to see Mr.. Robertson
make such an argument, for | well
know he is a good lawyer but it may
be that he has not lately read Sec
ton 3, Article 10 Of the Constitution
of Missouri, where it says taxation
shall be uniform" In the face OF this
constitutional provision for him to
try to convince the readers OF the
LEDGER that such a condition can
be brought about, / can but conclude
thatshe is of the opinion that Mr.
| Frederic N. Judson holds, whom he
quotes as one Of the ablest lawyers
land thinkers of Missouri and calls
attention to an article on the subject
OF taxation by him that appeared In
Sundays Republic, saying; "It should
be read by every voter in the State.
| | wish every voter in the State would
read it carefully, for in that article
you will see Mr.. Judson branded the
debtor classes as Ignorant and help
less. This is his language in referr-
ing to double taxation under the
present system, ''whereunder the
ignorant and helpless are compelled
10 pay tax from which Others are
practically exempt The debtol
classes in this State that are forced tt
pay double taxation, constitute al
least nine-tenths Of our citizenship
and IL nine-tenths of the citizens o.
Missouri are ignorant and helpless, w
E are in deplorable condition ant
: possibly should have guardians ap
/ pointed to look after our affairs, but
7 most solemnly protest against such
procedure until we have been so de
clared by the court having jurisdic
tion in such matters. Mr.. Robertson
in the fifth paragraph Of the secont
column in his article, makes this state
ment. $50, If A, who is a citizen o
Illinois, loans $1,000 to a citizen 0
this State, taking mortgage upol
land here to secure it, that 1000 i
by the law of Illinois and under tn
decision Of the United States Suprem
Court, above cited, taxable in tn
State of Illinois and not in Missouri.
This is a fact under the present systef
for the mortgage debt is now declares
to be personal property, but 1t is not
fact under the proposed amendment
for the mortgage debt will then b
declared to be an interest in the lam
as real estate. In proof of my posi-
! tion / will state that this question ha
been settled by the Supreme Court o
3 the United States in case from Ore
y gon. and the court in its decisio
e plainly declared that "a state may, fo
e the purposes of taxation, either trea
+ the mortgage debt as personal proI
erty, to be taxed like other chose
n action to the creditor at his domicil'
S or treat the mortgages interest in tn
e land as real estate to be taxed TO hiI
J like other real property at its Situs.
d Under that decision Of the Unite
le States Supreme Court no man, If tn
n amendment is sustained, who loaf
II money in this State, will be require
IT to pay taxes in any other state on h
money, for If 1t is legally taxable hel
is it would not be elsewhere. Mr.. Ro
s ertson tells you that in California
II where this law has been enforced 4