The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-11-18
DEATH TO LOANS.
Missouri Has Made n MIX of . Con-
stffutfonal Amendment.

Kansas City Journal.
Never in all the history of Missouri has
the State been placed in such position
as il is now. because OF the acceptance by
the voters OF what Is known as 'the third
amendment at the polls last week. Its
credit is damaged; loan companies are leav-
on real estate. nor can brokers operate. A
cloud has been cast upon every form OF
security In the State which is secured by
mortgage. deed of trust or similar lien. even
including tax bills: public and private work
is tied up: the rates for interest have risen
as far as the law will permit-in some in
stances having doubled-and capital is alb
solutely prohibited from investing. The eff
feet of this is that Missouri loans are I'm
possible of sale; Missouri securities are all
down, and no one will accept new ones as
precious gift. Money lenders are sitting
about idly talking about what to do next;
no two lawyers in town agree on a course
of procedure, and the confusion Is endless.
The so-called third amendment" pro-
vides for the taxation of securities such as
mortgages and deeds of trust. 1t says that
who lends the money-must pay taxes on IL,
and makes the assessor in every county the
authority regarding valuations This as
SCISSOR has no fixed rules; he assesses prop
erty at what he conceives it's value and
of this the owner of the security must pay
his proportionate part. The owner of the
land pays the rest. and il the mortgage
does not pay HIS part the mortgageor may
do so for him and turn the tax receipts in
part of the interest payments.
The law firm of HAIRLESS, O'Grady &
Crysler yesterday discovered a hope, how
ever. When the question was up in their
act providing for the submission of the
question to the people failed to make the
act complete: they omitted to specify how
the assessment must be made. That this
was an oversight is evident
The last paragraph of the enabling act
reads: In case OF debts so secured, mean
property affected by such mortgage, deed
of trust or contract, less the value of such
security" meaning the amount of money
loaned, shall be assessed and taxed to
the owner Of the property in the manner
hereinafter provided by law.
No such provision as this last sentence
was made, and notwithstanding the people
of the State have voted to amend the Con-
stitution so as TO tax mortgages, the fact
that there was not "a manner hereinafter
provided" to say how the assessment should
be made makes the entire amendment in
operative, it is held by them.
illustrate tive of how the amendment would
have acted If 1t had been properly written
Captain OGrady said yesterday:
"A man owns piece of property worth
8, 800 and he borrows $1,000 on II, The
amendment sought to have him pay taxes
upon his equity of $500 and the mortgage
taxes UPON the $1,000 interest he had in 1t.
If before the taxes came due the owner of
the property should pay $500 on the mort
gage then the owner would pay on the
81 600 equity and the holder of the mort
gage upon the $500 interest he yet should
hold in it. But that is presupposing as
SCISSORS valued property at the actual value.
They do not do this. Instead they assess
at about 40 per cent.
1.-The last section of the act shows the
trainers of the bill had this practice of
assessing at only part value in mind, but
they failed to make their bill complete In
that they did not say how the assessment
of things, be made, and now the result is
the constitutional amendment goes for
nothing until the Legislature finishes the
work of its predecessors"
H s. Julian, who was in the Legislature
and also helped in the revision of the state
laws, said this was a pernicious amend
ment, and that he had worked against 1t,
could be made imperative. and that the
way to bring 1t about was through the
Legislature itself. The amendment provides
that the properties shall be assessed and
taxed in the manner hereinafter to
be provided by law" If no law was here
matter provided, no carrying out of the
amendment would be possible, and thus the
will of the people would be held in abey-
ance while the case was presented to them,
that a sentiment for repeal might be
worked up by the next election. The prac-
ticability of this would be doubtful. how
ever. in effect, because While Ii might pre-
vent the carrying out of the law, it would
minds of the men with money to lend any
Irrt