The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-11-23

,a,ncl ! IL, tner condition that in the
! even. ms, INC holder OF the lien and
the 1wl.cr or the property should oy
agreement specify therein that the prop
cry owner wa. to pay the tax on tho
i mortgage OF other form Of pledge. then
| M in,eres. stould be collected on tho
] contract. ana ina. the agreement as to
inc ra,sncn. or taxes by the owner OF
| the land or the thing pledged should be
deemed to be void.
Upon its face that appears to be an
/ ideal plan. But IT did not prove to be.
] Tor the law was evaded BY collateral
| agreements requiring the land owner to
pay the tax on the mortgage. These col
lateral agreements were tested in the
courts and were upheld, by the Supreme
Court of California, so that the provisions
of the Constitution were entirely de-
featcd He adds that the system Of COLI
lateral agreements has after all brought
the California system into PRACTICAL COLI
for,n;ty with that OF the older States.
Il
ADOPTED as a constitutional provision in
MISSOURI. But the law In Missouri, as
& III Caiiforns a, exempted from its pro-
visions mortgages written by railway and
other quasi public corporations and by
I'D lv test case was brought before
the Seip,e,1l9 Court of that State. After
carefal investigation and executive con-
sheraton. M Kearney tells US. the
plan was held hy the SUPREME Court to
be contrary TO the Fourteenth Amend
ment TO the Federal Constitution, which
g.arantees to every citizen the equal
protection OF the laws. In its opinion
tie court expressed great wonder that
the people Of California had not earlier
succeeded In having the courts of their
own State disapprove the plan. 1T may
be- therefor e. said the Court, that the
evasion CT ;ne law has been found so
much easier than conles,ing its validity
that the itsai warfare has ceased and
/ tie patent borrower bears the burden
as CT old.
Mr. kcarney further calls attention to
the fact that at the National Confer
ence on Taxation held in Buffalo in lsc1,
the question OF taxing mortgages VAS
assigned for consideration to Frederick
n. Juason, of ST. Louis. q we'll known
authority Mr.. Judson referred at length
to me California plan. showing that 1t
was dismal failure. He said that Ore
5lx,.ai i. .,,i .ftaruar-tiS5 rf.Ilr:,!c5
it; that Michigan adopted and repealed
Il; that New Jersey attempted i. but
that the law had been continuously dis
regarded.
Coming finally to speak of how the
California plan would operate in Wis
consin. he said:
Assume. If You please. that this build
ing in which we are gathered cost 81
600 900 Assume aga n that there is q
mortgage on II for 100000, and that the
owner of the mortgage resides in the
town of Franklin Now the rate of
taxation in Milwaukee Is about 3 rer
cent, while the rate in the town of
Franklin is less than per cent. The
lipsN "
in ia rness to the owners of other build
ings in Milwaukee il Should bear an
assessment with other property based
Ipon an equality in valuation. What
would the advocates Of the California
plan DO Under this condition? They
ao4ld move s6oo00c of the value over
Unto Franklin and have 1t assessed there
ard assess the 100000 here IN that way,
,ous see, ,s5uG,eOo in tie value of the brid-
ing would escape tie ,axat on which
snould be Imposed upon it here in Mil
walk "
But suppose the owner of the mort
gage lived outside the State Of Wis
consin In that event s6lp,09o worth of
property woula escape taxation alto
gether in that State and might or might
rot be assessed in another State.
There Is but one safe rule for the
state ii must assess the actual, tang
ible, visible property wherever it be
found and tax. it according to. It's value.
But when the State has done that it
cannot fairly 70 farther and tax a debt
on tie property or any paper evidence
Of ownership tllerein
------------------
tSnns aaHY,c npannes;