What better illustration of double taxation can be given than the following:

Suppose I own a hotel property in Chicago. My place of residence is in some other State, where I pay taxes on my personal property. For my own reasons I have chosen to form a corporation for the purpose of capitalizing the property at exactly its cost to me, which we will call $100,000. I issue $50,000 in stock and $50,000 in bonds. Every one of these bonds belong to me, and every share of the stock except the few shares which may be required to qualify the other directors. To all intents and purposes I own, through the stock and bonds, the entire property. Now, by the double taxation method in the State in which I reside, these securities are taxable. Therefore, by my ownership of the hotel property being represented by stock and bonds, I am obliged to pay taxes upon it in the State in which I live. I must also pay taxes on the real estate itself in Chicago. Now let us suppose that I had not chosen to capitalize this property, but merely owned it as one owns any piece of real estate. In such an event I should not be obliged to pay taxes upon it in my State of residence, but only in Chicago. Does not this, al- though an extreme example, set forth the injustice of double taxation? It makes no difference whether one person owns the entire property, or practically so, or whether it is divided among numerous owners. The result would be just the same if their ownership were represented in stock and bonds in the one case, or by joint ownership of the real estate in the other. (See "Non-Taxable Investments.")