Mexico weekly ledger., 1900-11-01
AMENDMENT NO. 8.
George Robertson Answers Hon G, F,
Clark's Argument on the Amend
ment.

| To the Editor OF the Ledger
MEXICO, Mo-, Oct 27.-Mr. Clark
attempts to create a prejudice in the
minds Of people against those oppos-
ing Amendment No. 3, by stating that
Mr.. Judson "branded the borrowing
classes as ignorant and helpless"
Had Mr.. Clark quoted the entire
sentence from which he took this
phrase, it would be seen that no such
thing was said, and if he had read the
article in the Republic understanding
ly, he would never have made the
statement. The words ignorant
and "helpless'' were used therein in
the sense of ignorance of the methods
made use of to escape taxation and
helpless to do so.
The decision of the Supreme Court
Of the United States referred to by
Mr.. Clark, under the Oregon law, only
decides that the method Of taxing
mortgage interests in land owned by
citizens.of other states does not con-
travene the Constitution Of the United
States. That decision leaves 1t solely
to the states to tax without interfer-
ence from the Federal Government,
whatever may be within its jurisdie-
tion, in such manner as it may please
the different legislatures of the states.
1t is held by our own Supreme Court,
Al Mo. 594, that the State has the
power to tax all property within her
limits. 1t was SO held in this case,
although the property, which was
bonds, had been assessed for taxation
in the State of Illinois. In this in
stance the property was taxed in both
Jurisdictions. This is the universal
law and isso held; 100 U. S. Rep, 49l,
and 14l o. S. Rep, IS.
| When 1t is remembered that each
state is an independent sovereignty,
supreme within its limits over all sub
jects not delegated to the United
Estates, then it win at once be under
stood, that in the matter of state tax
alton each state can tax what it sees
fit to tax, and neither the United
States nor any other state can inter-
fere with that power.
/ The only way the argument, that
the proposed amendment will result
: in double taxation and thereby in
crease interest on loans by non-resi
It dents, can be met, is to deny that the
law is as 1t is, as Mr.. Clark has done
Michigan enacted the law, tried i
n. and found it to be failure and re-
pealed it.
Professor Adams, Of Ann Arber,
ed states that the effect of the law in
that state was Ito raise interest Jne
d. per cent? and that 'every one in
Michigan regarded the law as an alb
prk solute failure"
A former cititizen Of Missouri, now
a citizen Of California, ayS "With-
of out benefting the Stat bbeheye the
mortgage law is dissdTantage to the
borrower and comps him to pay
more interest than with the law not
upon the State book"
Recently The legislature OF New
Dis York investigated The law, thoroughly
Ider discussed Nsgt pronounced against it
dia- by defeitips 1t,
and ,,geat work on Taxation ip-SfiS=
gu son,f published by E. W. stephens,
: in ~ diumbia, in discussing the subject
lad EofK taxation of mortgages, says it
a1ld isswould be injurious to or own people
al and industries in discouragag the in
is yestnent of foreign capitaN in the
Le State"
". 1t is admitted by Mr.. Clark Dat in
%, case of residents of cities owninl
Is. mortgages upon lands outside, TN
x cities win lose in revenue and ina
the districtsn which the mortgage
are located wiz gain nothing.
r The mortgages as to state an
= counties will be taxed wherever stu
l. ated and residents Of cities loanin
!, money will escape municipal taXatio
. ON what they are now taxed, thereb
in another regard directly benehtin
the money lender at the expense
!, the general public, which will have
II pay more taxes to make up this d.
a ficit. GEORGE ROBERTSON.