The Pennsylvania packet, or, The general advertiser — Lancaster, Pa.;Philadelphia, Pa., 1780-03-04 00:00:00, page 2

Having already endeavoured to (hew, that depreciation
is a bad mode of collecting a tax oh money, and that a
tax on pap?r is a bad one. It still remains to determine,
whether paper being out of the question, it is right to tax
specie. To tax it asa commodity, is just. To tax it as
a Injury, is wife. To tax it as money, is impolitic and
unjutt. He who hath invested 10001. in plater, ought to
be taxed the fame proportion on that sum with him who
hathinvefted 10001. in land. He may also be taxed for
it in a further turn, as being one evidence of that great
wealth, which cannot perhaps be reached in any other
manner than laying high rates ®n thole luxuries ot which
are toe visible signs of it. But the man who hath 10001.
of specie io his chest, or hath lent that furn to his neigh
bour, ought not to be taxed for it. Now asthefe propo
sitions may appear extraordinary, and, as it is a very
favorite maxim with some, that bonus in particular ought
to be taxed. I fell examine the question on the ground
both of justice and policy.
If there be no law to regulate the rate of interest, it will
regulate itfelf by the average relation which the wants of
the debtor bear to the abilities of the creditor. Suppose
this Ihould be at about 6 per cent, a^d suppose A and B
to possess lands of equal quantity and value adjoininig to
each other, and to have equal skill and industry in the
management of them. Let the value of each trad be
10001. Let Abe possessed of 10001. in money, to flock
and improve his farm. And let B hire 1000 l from C for
the fame purposes at 6 per cent. In this situation of things,
A's property will be worth zoool, and B's 10001. Let us
then further suppose, the annual produce 01 each 'arm to
be 2001. and a tax of one per cent to be laid on the land
flock, &c. in possession of each ; Then A would pay 201.
and remain master of 1801. from which if we deduct 1201.
for the interest of his own property, it would leave 601. as
the reward of his skill and industry. In like manner, B
would pay 201. tax, he would also pay 601. to C for the
interest of his money, which would I ave in the hands of
B 1201. and if from that we deduct 601. for the interest of
his own property, it would leave a like sum of 601. asthe
reward of his skill and industry. A and B therefore
for the fame labors would have the fame reward.
to the INHABITANTS of AMERICA,
Mr Countrymen,
I KNOW not what success these papers may have,
but if they answer the intentions of the writer, they
will have a good one ; as a great part of his time hath been
(pent in the public service, it became his duty to tnink at
tentively on public affairs ; and he now confiders it as his
duty to give you those reflexions which were originally
made for your benefit. He does not pretend to convince
your servants. To be convinced is not their business,
as every body knows. But if his opinions are founded on
arguments whkh have weight with yois, your voice will
not be unattended to.
But new let us suppose, that tie government should lay
a tax of one per cent, ora C's bond. As this would nei
ther dim n sh the wants of debtors nor increase the abilities
of creditors, the average relation before-mentioned would
remain the fame; and therefore the rate of interest being
effe&u lly the fame to the creditor, would become great
er by the one per cent, tax to the debtor. Of consequence
B would p y for the money he had borrowed 7 per cent,
and therefore his met profit would be reduced from 601. to
50!. Thus then a difference would be made in saver of
A, the rich man, agaiaft Bfhe poor man. But further in
the case above Rated ; C's bond would only represent the
cattle and utensils on B's farm. Taxing the representa
tive, therefore, as well as the thing represented, would lay
a double tax on the poor, and leaveit fiogle on the rich.
Perhaps we shall be asked, whether the monied man ought
not to be taxed. I answer, that if a tax is laid on all 0-
ther property, then, whenever he purehafes any thing with
his money, in the price of that he will pay the tax laid on
it. Whoever borrows his money in order to purchase with
it, must do the fame, and will therefore give a lefter in
terest, which operates a tax. But while it lies in aman's
chest, it is useless to him, wherefore it ought not to be
paid for, and the moment it goes out, that moment it pays
the tax infeperable from the price of the commodity pur-
Chafed.
But when the above arguments press hard, and shew
what injuries the poor will sustain. We shall be toki of
laws to regulate tee rate of interest. Without otoferving
as I might, that these laws do not operate with all the ef
ficacy which is imagined ; it will he easy to Ihew the in
justice of thetax from another quarter. If one penny per
pound be laid on candles, and the chandler is at liberty
to reimburse himftlf, by the addition of a penny per pound
to the price. Then if one (hilling per day be laid upon
hackney horses, the owner ought to be at liberty to in
crease the daily fare ofhis horses one shilling. And if he
who le; s horses, is at liberty to increase the hire, by reason
of the tax, surely he who lets money to buy thole horses,
ought to have the fame liberty.
In every case then the tax on money would be unjust,
and if unjust then from the principles before established,
it must also be unwise. But this general deduction may
notappear (efficiently conclusive to those who are pleased
with the character of great politicians. A character which
the world hath very erroneously bestowed on men of fi
neffe and intrigue. Men who consider attentively the
end they have in view, but are not very scrupulous about
the means they make rife of. As these men have some
times a great deal more to fay in public affairs than is
abfolntely necessary, I shall mention some arguments
against the tax in question, on the ground of policy and
expedience, which mayperhaps be more agreeable to
their temper and difpofitien.
Supposing the tax to operate the effect intended, then
the money holder finding he could not make the proper
and necessary advantage from letting his money, would
naturally make use of it himftlf, and thereby deprive the
industrious poor of that use, or if from any local or par
ticular circumflances he could not so apply it, he would
quit the state and take his bond with him, in which case
the tax would be utterly unproductive. The State there
fore would derive no benefit from the law, but would sus
tain an annual loss by payment of the interefl. To
evince this let it be supposed, that in time of full freedom and
peace, Pennsylvania ihould not tax bonds or money, and
every other State in the Union should tax them. Would
mot every monied man repair to Penufylvania? Would
It is very common that those who labour, fliould feel
some enmity towards those who do not. It is also very
common for those who feel supposed grievance, to take
the most direct road for getting rid. of them. Mankind
are generally wrong in both in fiances, but never more so
than in the qutfiion now before us.
Unless the rewards of industry are feccre, no one will
be industrious ; for the motive which prompts the toils
of a laborious man, is the hope of enjoying what those
toils may produce. This produce is wealth, and whether
it be in one shape or in another, so long as it is employ
ed for the purpose of increasing the commodities in a coun
try, so long it is beneficial and no longer. Thus, if the
farmer hath not the fright to dispose of bis grain, he cer
tainly will not labour to raise it, after he hath raised it, if
it be applied to feed cattle in order to produce more grain,
or to feed men whose labours produce other things, it is be
nefical to the State; but not if it is fuffered to decay in
his granaries. If he fells it and places the money in his
chest, the money is unproductive, but if that money be
let to a farmer or mechanick, who is thereby enabled to
jnereafe his productions, it is beneficial to the State. If
ioftead of this, it is invested in the purchase of uncultiva
ted land, so as to become eventually advantageous to the
purchaser, by a rife in the valueof the land, shat land
lying uncultivate, is as unprofitable to the State, as the
, money woul Ibe whilelying in a chest. If several pur
chasers should obtain all the uncultivate land lying conti
guous tofettlements, they mightby monopolizing increase
the value of it to themselves, but they would destroy the
value of it to the State . •Their wealth would be greater;
the wealth of the State would be less. The poorer and
more industrious part of the Community therefore, which
in a political point of view is certainly the more valuable
and referable part, t^efe are injured by the one use of
money, as opposed to the other in two different ways.
Negatively, because for the want of materials they cannot
extend their industry so far as they otherwise would. Fo
fitively, because they would pay dearer for the neceffariea
of life, in proportion as the land was dearer, from which
those necessaries were raised, and because, as the aggre
gate wealth of the State would continue the fame, while
the relative wealth of the rich became greater, the rela
tive wealth of the poor must necessarily become less.
To deduce from hence the pernicious consequences
which would follow to our Republican Cooftitutions, is
needless, neither are they within my present plan. But
as doubts may remain with refpe& to the force of these
arguments, we will make a fliort appeal to experience.
And here let it be promised, that in mentioning different
States, I mean rot to draw any odious comparisons, but
simply to shew effeds as they have followed from their
causes, The land of Holland is very high, interest very
low. There are constant emigrations from other coun
tries to Holland. In America the land is very low, in
terest very high. There are constant emigrations from
other countries to America. In Ireland land is high and
interefl is high. There are conflant emigrations from
Ireland. Again : InNew York land was monopolized ;
in Pennsylvania it was not. Money in Pennsylvania was
at fix per cent ,in New-York at seven. In Pennsylvania
the country was well cultivated, and manufactures; in
New York the country was not well cultivated, and ma
nufactures were hardly introduced. What was the reason
of these differences? The poor man in Pennsylvania
bought a farm for one hundred pound, and paid on that
sum fix per cent interest ; The poor man for a like farm
in New York, gave one hundred and fifty pounds, and
paid fev n percent. The manufacturer in Pennsylvania
gave fix per cent, for the money which purchased rude
materials, and fed his workmen with flour at sixteen fliil
lings per cwt, raised from a farm of one hundred pound
cost ; the manufacturer in New-York gave seven per cent,
for his materials, and fed his workmen with flouratfeveu
teen (hillings per cwt. raised from a farm of one hundred
and fifty pound cost. The farmer bought an ax in Pennsyl
vania for nine flhllings, from a smith who gave fix per cent,
for iron and coals; the farmer in New-York gave ten
(hillings for an ax, to a smith who paid seven per cent, for
iron and coals. Lastly, to the foreigner who wanted four,
the merchant of Pennsylvania offered seventeen barrels in
exchange of a piece of gold ; which the New-York mer
chant would only give sixteen barrels for : The Pennsyl
vania merchant therefore having outbid the other, pur
chased the piece of gold, and added it to that money, the
abundance of which brought interest down to fix per cent,
in Pennsylvania, and to three per cent in Holland.
From what has been said, it clearly follows, that two
uses of property being given, the one to let it out on in
terefl to the industrious, and the other to purchase unculti
vate land :the former is far more beneficial to the commu
nity than thelatter. Now, as a tax on money must produce
the latter, if it produces any thing, therefore such tax
must be unwise. But this is not all. To raise a tax with
ease and cheapness, it must be raised in money, tho' not
on money. It can therefore only be raised out of the circu
lating medium of the country. But it has already been
(hewn, that a tax on money would tend to banish it from
the State. Hence it follows, that the circulating medi
um being decreased, to raise a given sum would not only
be more difficult, but a greater (hare of the commodities
of the country must be fold to procure it. Or in other
words, the tax being nominally the fame, and as to other
States effeauaily the fame, would as to the particular
Rate be much greater.
The general odium against monied men is therefore very
ill founded, although individuals among them in all coun
tries are justly deserving of public (corn. We ought how
ever, in political reasoning, to distinguish very carefully
between motives and actions. The motives of an indivi
dual may be bad, and yet his a&ions may be politically
good, while on the other hand, his motives may be good,
and yet his a&ions politically bad. Inordinate ambition
may stimulate a rich man to spend his fortune in the pub
lic Service, and misguided zeal may induce a pious man to
beggar his children by endowing a convent.
But to return. Monied men being odious, the plain me
thod of dealing with them seems to be by taxing their mo
ney, and this is particularly agreeable, when that money
hath been acquired in a mean or wicked manner. But this
is far from operating thedefired effect. I have (hewn, that
supposing the tax could be rendered effectual, it would
hot Penfylvania be enriched by the monsy of the whole
Continent? And would not every other State pay her
a tribute for the use of it ?
produce injury to the Stafe is general, and to the pdofti
particular. To all this, let rue add, that the tax never
can be rendered effectual. Money is of to® fubtile and spi
ritual a nature to be catched by the rude hand of the law.
It will continually elude the grasp of the Legislator. He
will at length difeover that he hath followed a jack
olanthorn, in politics over many weary ways and perhaps
very muddy ones too, yet still continues as far from the
object as ever. How will you find a man's money, is the
queflion? I know there is a trite reply very ready with
some folks. But what should we think of a government
that would offer to every one of its fubjetls a reward for
perjury, exaßly proportioned to his wealth. And what
difference is there, except in the name, between such an
offer and laying a tax, the quantum of which is to be de
termined by the oath of the party ? Men who are honest
may flatter themselves that perjury would not in general
becommitted., I wj(h such men would examine the re
cords of a Court of Chancery, or the hifiory of Holland,
or any other country in which such tax has been laid.
There is no infiance where it has not failed upon fair ex
periment, and no experiment which has not been injuri
ous to public morals. If however the advocates for such
a measure persist in their idea, of the integrity of man
kind, I confefs it is an amiable prejudice, and I will not
drive to remove it. This however must be admitted, that
some men would by perjury elude the law, and this being
admitted, it follows clearly, that the law would be a tax
upon honefly and not upon money.
A tax then on specie is unjuf land unwise; a tax on pa
per is more unwise; and more unjust! And of all the
modes in which it can be laid or collected. Depreciati
on is the worst. Thus Hands the matter in fair argument,
but to every argument used on these occasions, there are
some who answer by repeating the terms monopolizer,
fcreftaller, regrater, engrosser, Bloodsucker, and so
forth. Thus a conjurer it is said, can raise the devil by the
help of certain cabaliftic terms, which it would puzzle the
very devil bimfelf to underhand. Let tie money fink
fay some, and you will punish those villains who are grown
rich by the public distresses
There are undoubtedly bad men who have acquired
wealth by odious methods, and to take it from them might
gratify the public resentment, they justly merit. But Le
gislators ought not to be fwaye^by passion. Be these
then ever so nefarious, it is not very clear that govern
ment hath a right to break their faith, in order that they
may punish a&s of moral turpitude, by enabling a penalty
which no law had iufhaed. Perhaps it would be better to
leave the punishment bf such mifereants to the anger of
Heaven, than to incur that anger by committing owe crime
to avenge another. Besides, among those whohave men
ded their circumflances during the war, a part, and not
the smallest part, have done so by plunder taken from the
enemy, at the risk of their fortunes, and of their lives;
others by adventrous foreign commerce, and some indeed
by engrossing. But certainly among those who hold the
paper. Persons of the class last mentioned, have not at
most, above a hundredth part. To ruin our money then,
in order te ruin them, even supposing the one to be both
a necessary and defireable consequence of the other, would
do at least ninety-nine times as much harm as good.
Harm to the honest merchant! Harm to the brave sea
man! To the industrious Whig farmer or mechanjck!
To the helpless orphan, to the difireffed widow, and
to the generous foreigner, who hath entrusted to us his
property in the hour of distress, through difficulties and
dangers innumerable. The man who advocates a measure
of this fort, must be deceived, or he must be cur foe.
I am, your friend,
An A M,E RICAN.
Wilmington, February 26, 1780.
TO BE SOL D,
ANEGROE MAN and his WIFE, with a Child
about 15 months old. The Man is an excellent
Fa/mer, and being used to horses, would suit well for an
heftier, er to drive a team. The Woman is a good
kitchen Wench; both are young, healthy and likely.
They are by agreement, to have their freedom in Novem
ber 1794, but thrir Child, and the Children they may
have during their fetvitude, are to be (laves for life. For
terms enquire of the Printer, or of the fubferiber in
Wilmington, where the Negroes may be seen.
DANIEL J. ADAMS.
TO BE L E T,
A HOUSE, BARN and STABLE, with two
pumps of good water, a large garden and one acre
of grass land near Spring Garden. Enquire of Wil
liam Shipley in Race-street.
WANTED TO HIR E,
ANEGROE BOY of good temper,about 12 or 14.
years of age. Any perfun having such a one, may
hear of a good place oy applying to the Printer.
Philadelphia, March 1, 1780.
TH E partnership of Shaffer and Habacker
being (hffolved, all those indebted to them, are
requeued to make immediate payment, and thole who
have any demands against them, are defined to bring in
their accounts for final settlement, to
JOHN SHAFFER.
Said Shaffer continues to have for (ale, at his Store in
Second Street, between Arch and Race Streets, Spirits,
Rum, Wine, Genev, Brandy, 6ng|e and double refi
ned Loaf and Mufcovado Sugars; also a few Barrels of
excellent Pork.
XM^XX^WXM^^AW^M
TH E fubferiber has for sale, a quantity o' the best
DRUMS wholesale and retail, where matters of
vt£l# and others may he (Applied on reafonahle terms,
by Jacob Martin in Third-fireet, be ween Chefout and
Walnut streets, er by Capt. Henderson at the corner of
Front and Walnut-streets ; or by the fubferiber in Ger
mantown, near Mr, John Biinghoughts.
HENRY FRALEY.