The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1903-03-29
49, v ~ 1908.

ys fSs l 81
rHE7rIM1Ss b TSP ATC11
would be PASSED 81 not Some loans AZ J,
we're made On ths following terms Upon
application BY propert N owner !, ~, for.
loan. he was told BY the money Lender ~ 9.
that ne cotiid have the money II 9 per per
cent, II Sthe Bill should hot paI.ss, ard !, .
pc cents which Is the cor trnot price, ~
Ut should pass AS beggars B are II nOt
otoosers, and III lenders made he g, same ~
propositlon there was nothing IL ~ pus
to accept the money or The Sgpery cent ;EfrE'
basis winch iss the legal rate, y rder} $oof,-
tract III Missouri, and then, aside from
the mortgage, the money lender had u; a
written agreement with the moi ga or
that he would refund 2. per cent, N the
event the law did not pass. The law
was finally defeated. (,
AS Its operation here seems TO- Pc I'M e 4
practicable, the same propositl ton holds
good With the proposed Virginia law Y
EttIis easy enough for n itran to transfer
Ills property to@a straw man, who VIII
! hi turn give him back mortgage Tor
part purchase money A and this straw "a "
man. will In nil probnbillty BIO nom
resident Of tho State. s. Thus you; Will see
the State will mot only lose \ the tax on
the mortgage, but will also lose q large
portion Of tho tax on the lands which
$nre now free ana clear and subject to
taxation. There are many wa vs. OF dodg-
Ing taxes, IL a man Is dishonest, and II
IS impossible to pass amy law thats6wtl
get itS ali. But our Legislature don't
want to mako the mistake OF "straining
at IA gnat and swallowing d camel. t
b '1ls'T a 1. AZ CHARLES d. oKB.
B Richmond, Va, March 81. !; y d u &, n ~
In this connection We not q commrni--.
cation In the New York Evening Post
OF Thursday last, from Mr.. r. F. Hall,
d former member OF the New York bar . !,
now residing in Montgomery, Alabama
In which he calls attention to the TACT
that the Supreme Court Of the United
states has on two occasions held that
a state cannot extend Its powers over
non-residents so as to tax claims held
by them against citizens Of the state
In Mr.. Halls view. 80 far as REGARDS
outsiders, q law such as Senator y arks IS.
dale proposes would impair the obliga e
ton OF the mortgage contract and would ll1s
lie null and void as q vlolation OF the
contract clause Of the Federal Consti-
tuition. One OF the decisions he cites is
in the case Of a railroad company against against
jackson, from tho State OF PENNSYLVANIA,
reported in Wallace, 2G2. Jackson
was a British subject residing In Ire Ire
land and that being the case. the court
Held that the coupons or interest Of
certain mortgage bonds owned by him
and issued by Pennsylvania railroads
could not be taxed by that State.lsTThe
other case cited is that Of the State tax
on foreign held bonds, decided Il In 1872 81
and reported in Volume XIV Of Wallace g y 8
Reports. The opinion was delivered by
MI. Justice Field. AS to the statute OF
Pennsylvania (Which required that per
ccntun, should be deducted from the
coupons and paid Into the State treas stls'.
ury). he said: XVI a8a Ill. .s5c f "a I43y
ut is a law which interferes between
the company and the bondholder and,
under pretense Of levying q tax, com com
mnnds the company to withhold a4por-
ton Of the stipulated Interest and pay
it over to the State, It is "a law While
thus impairs tho obligation OF the con
tract between the parties
Again, he says: Fl y}
3s"1t may undoubtedly be taxed by the
State when held by a resident therein
but when held by a nonresident It IS as
|5mu cl, beyond tAs jurisdiction of the
State as the person Of the owner &. 3ss,,
In an editorial review Of Mr.. Halls
letter. The Evening Post says tina .stlese
decisions haveaa direct bearing on the
mortgage tax; that mortgage on rea,
estate in New York is. a sign and evil
dence OF the claim held by a lender
against borrower; the lender may be 6
! citizen OF another State or country; hi
may or may not pay his own State o,
county a tax on the claim, but under 2oul
Constitution and system Of government
he cannot be called upon to pay a ia,
on 1t in q jurisdiction other than tina
| lot hts domcile. Ell "A s5j
This is law. and 1t Is common sense
Under the laws OF Virginia we tax. O
at least try, to tax, notes held by ou
| citizens and secured by mortgage II
other States. 1t Is to be presumed from
vrginia's point Of view that such note
held In other States and secured by mort
gage In Virginia are taxed where tn
holder resides. We could not. therefore
4 with any sort OF consistency attempt t
tax both resident and non-roslden
mortgage holders. To DO so would lea
to all sorts Of confusion. and even If tn
| attempt should succeed, after all tn
borrower, as our correspondent polnt
out, would hive to pay the tax.
There ought to be some relief for tn
borrower, He catches It every time. II
has to pay the tax as surely as the ia
Is levied, and II there is a double tax. h
has to pay It all. For our part, we ca
!, see no possible relief Tor the borrowe
except to exempt the mortgage and /