THE FARMER AND THE SINGLE TAX. 333 



the whole, if the company failed to pay interest. The stock 

 and bonds aUke are simply evidence of interests in property 

 located in California. 



Now in this case it is only the railroad itself that can pay 

 any taxes. The stock and bonds earn nothing but what the 

 railroad earns for them. But the railroad is in California, 

 and the authorities of that state, finding it there, tax it for 

 $10,000,000, which it cost. The New York assessor, however, 

 linds certain of its citizens with evidence of ownership in a 

 railroad some thousands of miles away, and taxes them upon 

 $8,000,000, while the Boston assessor is equally prompt in 

 taxing the $2,000,000 owned in Boston. These gentlemen all 

 vigorously protest that all that they own is a railroad in Cali- 

 fornia, which is taxed already in California, but it avails them 

 nothing. So far as the assessor can find the stock and bonds 

 they are taxed. This, if there is an honest assessment in each 

 state, is certainly double taxation, and will be evaded so for as 

 possible, even by improper means. The case of a mortgaged 

 farm is precisely similar. A farmer with a farm worth $4,000 

 may mortgage it for $2,000, thereby parting with one-half his 

 property, while retaining the control of the whole so long as 

 he pays interest. He pays taxes, however, in most states, upon 

 the whole farm as if he owned it all, while the owner of the 

 mortgage, if he can be found, is taxed on $2,000 additional. 

 If the assessment is honest, taxes are collected on $0,000, wdien 

 there is really but $4,000 to be taxed.* 



If a manufacturer of agricultural implements sells j)lo\vs 

 to the value of $1,000 to a local dealer, and takes his note at 

 six months, he is taxed on the note. If the dealer sells them 



*In California, and possibly in other states, the mortgage is assessed to its 

 owner as appears by the county records, who pays the tax on the face value of 

 the mortgage, the owner of the equity being taxed only on the ditference 

 between the face of the mortgage and assessed valuation of the farm. This is 

 a correct principle, but it did not accomplish what it was intended for. It was 

 demanded by the farmers in order to reduce interest by making the mortgagee 

 pay this tax. As a matter of fact the tax is added to the interest and a little 

 more for contingencies. The mortgage is taxed at its full face value, while the 

 land in excess of the mortgage is assessed much lower. 



