The Daily Ardmoreite. [volume] (Ardmore, Okla.) 1893-current, 1913-02-28

mortgage or his farm worth $4,000,
TOR $4,000 one-half the value, the
farmer does not own his farm, but
lonly owns one half of it, and the
double taxation" which the mortgage
holders prate so much about Is not
on the lender but on the farmer VINO
lcnly owns one-h half of his farm, Dut
rays on the full value. To make
this more gfieyous, it is proposed IN
1.-The Wright bill to exempt the money
LENDER from taxation except the ming
fee which amounts to about ! mill
per year on a fiyeyear loan, while
the farmer pays about 20 mills on
a full valuation and does not OWN
but half his property. Now 1t would
be fair If the farmer Is exempted
from paying on that portion of his
real estate or that portion of the
value represented by the mortgage.
The most equitable law on this point
would be one requiring the owner
of real estate when giving in his
/ property for taxation to give the
name and address of the mortgage
holder and the amount of the mort
gage, and charge farmers equity to
l. him and the mortgage holder there
Icf Then, it would also be fair and
right to require non resident mort
gagees to pay the fee provided for
in the Wright bill, or some fee, when
the mortgage is filed,
Suppose again that a party hay
ing $4,000 had moved into this
county last fall, in time to loan out
all his money on real estate before
taxing time January lst), and he
does loan all the $4,000 before tax
ibg time, on property worth at least
double that amount, he would have
10000 invested as safe as If in
government bonds and bringing him
a revenue of about to 10 per cent
and not pay a cent of taxes, not
more than $50 on $4,000 under the
Wright bill, to say the most of it
and the chances are that he would
require the farmer to pay that in
advance, while the farmers to whom
this man had loaned the $4,000
would have to pay about per cent
taxes on full valuation, and
perhaps not make enough on mis- farm
to pay the tax and live, much less to
produce revenue of to 10 per
cent. In one case the lender has
sure return of to 10 per cent and
pays no taxes, and in the other case
The borrower has an uncertain in
come if any at all, and pays taxes on
twice as much as he owns. The
double is on the borrower.
The avowed object of such a law
as proposed in the Wright bill is to
induce outside capital into the state.
That is only a ruse of the money
lender and is really great joke.
Everyone knows that many thous-
ands of dollars are loaned on farms
in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois and other
states at 3, or per cent interest.
That same money in this state would
yielG the owner I, s or 10 per cent,
leaving the lender a net income of
from ) to per cent per annum while
the mortgagors, the farmers, make
from nothing to or per cent and
must endure the burning sun and
wait anXiously for the rain that often
does not come, in order to make that.
1t is simply a case of the rich
seeking to get richer and having the
money to give them Influence, are
trying to obtain the legislation 20
further their unholy ends.
Why not pass a law providing for
Il dividend of about two per cent
per annum to the mar who brings
money into the state, and require
the taxpayers to foot the bill? Why
and how is the man with the money
such a public benefactor as entities
him to be exempt from taxation?
Why and in what way is the money
lender such religious or charitable
institution" as entities him to gather
in his six or ten per cent and bear
none of the burdens of the govern
nent that enables him to collect it?
There are very few money lenders
who are philanthropists.
What this state needs, particularly
the east side of the state is more
farmers and it would be far better
to provide some means by which the
farmer can be exempted from taxa
ton for a time than to hit the pros
pective farmer in the face with the