Year: 1879

l ally favoring the wealthy classes. On tine

 contrary, we have never srunk from express. l ing our firm belief that America had much 1 iiiore to fear from her rich than from her poor from plutocracy than from the mob. Nevertheless we are accused by two valued l correspondents in this very paper of unduly favoring the rich because we oppose the tax. | ation of debts. Both these gentlemen misun.

 derstand the position we take. It is simply

 this, that taxation should be in all cases im-

 posed on the reality not on the mere shadow

 of property. A single illustration will suf- flee:

 A father living in Kent, deeds his farm, l worth 5000, to his son, and takes note se- cured by mortgage for the purchase price. Here certainly is no creation of new property, and consequently there should be no new tax

 ation-a fact which is acknowledged by our

 existing statutes which provide against double

 taxation by allowing the debtor to swear off

 the tax on the land which he only nominally

 owns, upon the creditor who is the real owner

 Now let us suppose that the father removes to

 New Milford, the son remaining upon the

 farm in Kent. In this case the father still

 continues to pay the tax on the property, but

 he pays it into the town treasury of Kent and

 not into that of New Milford, on the principle that property should be taxed in the town

 where it actually lies So far just provision is made against taxing both property and debt.

 Theoretically, too, justice is done between debtor and creditor by making the latter pay taxes upon the interest he holds In the debtors property, not, be it remembered, in the town

 where the creditor lives and where the note is, but in the town where the property lies.

 Now let us suppose that the father, living in Kent, owns farm just over the line in Dover, N. Y. He pays taxes upon the farm in Do- yer, and no one thinks of taxing it in Kent. He deeds it to his son as in the former case, taking the same security for it's purchase price. No new property is brought into existence by this arrangement, and the farm is taxed as be- fore in Dover; but here steps in the assessor of Kent and assesses the note held by the father, and thus the 5000 worth of property pays two taxes, ore in Dover and another in Kent. "Yes. and justly" cry our correspond ents, 'for it is the creditor not the debtor who should pay the taxi" But the debtor has already paid the tax. The creditor has acquired no new property by the sale; he has simply exchanged fee simple in certain real estate for mortgage interest of less value, and the town-of Kent cannot justly claim any greater tax from him now than it claimed before.

 It may be argued, however. that it is unjust that the debtor in Dover cannot by any swear ing off process, any longer compel the creditor in Kent to pay the tax on the farm, covered by mortgage to it's full value. To this the New York authorities reply; ''We would gladly make the creditor pay the tax on this farm, but he is beyond reach of our process The debtor should have provided for this when he gave his note by reduction in the rate of interest he pays. We tax, and have right to tax, whatever property we find within our boundaries It is protected by our laws and must pay it's fair share of state and town expenses'

 One would suppose from reading our friends criticisms on our plan that the present system of taxation afforded some relief to the debtor. It does nothing of the kind. Instead of re- lieving him of the tax he ought not perhaps to pay, It simply leaves him under that burden and piles another tax upon the creditor. In other words, on pretence of relieving the debt or taxed in Dover on property really owned in Kent, the State of Connecticut steps in and makes sure that there shall be no reduction of interest in lieu of tax, by taxing the debt which derives it's only value from property To- cated in Dover.

 Our venerable Sharon friend, seeing that this double taxation is pure extortion, accuses the State of Illinois of unjustly taxing the land within her boundaries which is mort gagged to Eastern creditors. Connecticut had been taxing all the land and personal property situated within her borders, whether owned at home, or owned abroad, or motgaged abroad, for near two hundred years before Illinois had ever laid tax? Does not Connecticut today tax every acre of land and every hoof of stock, within her State limits, no matter where owned, or to whom it is mortgaged?

 It must be plain, Tn short, that debts, mortgages, and the like, do not increase prop erty; they simply divide it's ownership. In such case, too, it would be absurd for the several states to give up the taxation of the property actually within their jurisdiction, and attempt to levy taxes on nonresident creditors entirely out of reach of their process. The taxation of debts where the creditor resides, in such cases, simply heaps wrong upon wrong. Undoubtedly it is grievous annoy ance to the Connecticut assessor to see our citizens sending their money West for invest ment. In his wrath he pounces on certain pieces of paper in the creditors chest. here at home, as if they were property. They are not property here; they are mere evidence of property elsewhere. The creditors property

 is in reality no longer in his chest in Connecti cut, but has 'gone West, in many instances never to return.