The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-11-14
THURSDAY NOVEMBER IA. IDOL
THE LIGHTS BREAKING.

Commerce Convention of New iork,
which met at Buffalo last month, the
j. same being in substance that the comfy
existing among the States should prevent
the double taxation of property. or
example,, says the Sun, If a railroad in
New York is fully taxed upon its visible
property and its franchises, then the
owner Of a portion of that road-namely,
stakeholder living in Maryland-shonid
not be taxed in Maryland also, as that
would be double taxation. The certiti-
cate of stock represents nothing more
than share i'll the road. The road has
already paid its tax, and the tax on the
part owned by the Maryland stakeholder
has been deducted from his dividend in
! effect. For Maryland to tax him again
Is not only double taxation. it IS con-
tended, but unjust, because Maryland in
the supposed case gives nothing III re-
turn for the money it exacts. The prop
Z erty is all in New York and is protected
and guarded at the expense of that
= State
Our readers will recognize tits as tie
great principle for which The Times las
been contending during the past several
months, and we are gratified to see this
quasi approval Of the Baltimore Sun
The Sun adds that the correctness of this
theory is partially recognized by the Jaws,
of MARYLAND in that they impose a re-
duced rate of taxation upon stocks OF
foreign corporations owned in Maryland.
Such stocks, it says, are assoSsed at their
market value and are taxed Al The full
rate of State taxation, but tie taxation
for local purposes is limited to thirty
cents on the hundred dollars, being only
about one-sixth of the local rate imposed
ON other property in Baltimore.
But this provision in the Maryland law
is utterly inconsistent. and is III itself
confession that the taxing of such so
called property is unjust. If it is right
to tax such stock at all. why not at iuil
rate? Many people cannot See or will net
see that a certificate of stock is not
property, but merely the evidence OF
ownership and has the same relation to
the property itself that a deed has to 4
piece of real estate. A man buys a house
and lot and receives from the seller an
instrument Of writing conveying the prop
erty to him and his heirs and assigns,
which instrument of writing we call a
deed or title. Nobody prete;1ds TO say
that this deed is in itself property The
property in the case is the house and lot,
and the deed is simply the evidence of
EI,a dos
and yet the property is in no way af-
fected. On the other hand, if a man, ;n-
stead OF purchasing a house and lot, pur-
chascs an interest in corporation, he re-
ceiyes an instrument Of writing showing
the extent Of his interest in the COM
pary's property. 1t is. in other words, his
title and STANDS on all fours. SO far as
1.-The question Of ownership is invoked,
with the deed in the other case cited.
Hence we say that a certificate of stock
Is no more property than a deed is prop
erty- Now the State is fairly entitled to
tax the property Of its corporations or
SO much of that property as lies. within
its borders. But when it has taxed all
the property of a corporation of what
ever kind Including what is called the
company's franchise, it surely has
right to tax the certificates CT stock any
more than it has the right 10 tax deed.
Bat suppose the owner OF such stock
certificates lives in Virginia. while the
property Of the corporation lies in an
other State. The same rule applies The
.C-4-
which lies without its bounds. and there
fore it has no right to tax the evidence
\ of ownership in such property.
To make this quite clear. let Us suppose
that citizen of Virginia owns a house
and lot IN the city of Raleigh, n. c. The
citizen has in his possession a deed TO The
property. which. as has been already
stated, is the evidence of his ownership.
Does any reasonable man contend that
such a deed is a proper subject of taxa
lton? The property in the case lies in
North Carolina and is taxed by the State
,of North Carolina, and the owner of The
property, vino is citizen Of Virginia. pays
his taxes to the State end city in which
his property lies. II the State of Virginia
should impose an additional tax upon
him it would be double taxation. But sup
pose this same citizen exchanges his
house and lot for an interest in cotton
factory situated in the city of Raleigh.
and receives in token of his interest a
certificate Of stock TO the amount of his
purchase. The property of the corpora
a:on is taxed in the city of Raleigh and
The owners OF the stock certificates.
wherever they may reside. ere required
To pay each holder his portion of the
tax. The Virginia citizen supposed paws
his part OF the tax which is deducled
from his dividend. Then how in .he
name of justicso can the State of Virginia
necuirc him to pay an additional tax in
silis State2 This were as clearly a case
OF double taxation as though he had been
tmadc to pay a tax in the other instance