The Pennsylvania packet, or, The general advertiser — Lancaster, Pa.;Philadelphia, Pa., 1780-02-29 00:00:00, page 1

To the INHABITANTS of AMERICA.
MY Countrymen,
IT is among the advantages of a government, adminis
tered on free principles, that a man may not only fol
low what occupation he pleases, but hold also the opinions,
and publish the doctrines which are most agreeable to him.
As many seem inclined to use this last privilege, particu
larly with relation to your finances, all have the opportu
nity of chufing a system ready made, if they will not be at
the trouble of'framing one for themselves. It is however
by no means a matter of indifference, what system is ge
nerally adopted, and particularly whether or not it be an
honest system; for though we ihould admit, thata confi
derabh prefen't profit may be derived from knavery, we
must agree that a lasting loss is incurred. So that ill effect
a sum obtained on fraudulent principles, pays heavier in
terest than even an usurer would have exa&ed.
Chartres, who was one of the most notorious as well as
one of the greatest rogues that ever lived, often said, he
would give ren thousand pounds for a good character. It
seems that by repeatedly ruining the widow and the or
phan with other enormities, his bad reputation was so
firmly eftabldhed, that he could no longer find men foolilh
enough to become his dupes. Government will soon ar
ri';r itthe deplorable Situation of Chartres, if they fuffer
themfrives to be drawn into an imitation of his conduct.
Thef^ thin, seeing premised, let us proceed to examine,
whether thed relation hath been a wife and a just tax. I
involve th^fe things together, because I wish to inculcate
a thorough conviction, that in all cases, but more parti
cularly in matters of finance, that which is wicked can
never be wife.„
The proposition that depreciation is a good tax, involves
two of rs. Fifft that tax on money is a good one, and
lecondl% that tue depreciation is a good mode of laying
and colita r ^ To give both these a fair examination,
we will for the preftot admit the former to be true. In or
der to determine the latter, let us suppose the State is about
to issue its paper, and Ihould fay openly to the people,
we here offer you our note for a guinea, but we intend to
make so many othrs of the fame kind, that it shall not
eventually be worth more than a groat. What would
such a note fell for in the firft instance ? Perhaps nothing,
but certainly notabove four pence, because it is evident,
that no man would give more for it in present, than it
would be worth in future. The intention of the State,
therefore would be defeated at once, and they would have
the mortification to find that the whole course of intended
depreciation, would be run in an instant.
Suppufe that instead of fixing the future value at a groat,
they were to leave it indefinite. Then what would the
note fell for? It would fell for nothing,; because, even
those who inclined to beljeve in it at all, would conclude
u Terentiy, as to the eventual value. But as the eventual
must be the standard of the immediate value, consequent
ly, t e latter would be as indeterminate as the former;
and therefore, it could not possibly serve as a medium of
commerce. If for instance, the individual A, believed it
would be worth half a guinea, B a crown, and C a (hil
-11 Ig. If A war.d to buy of B, the price would be too
high, and if of C, it would be still higher. But as each
oftbem would trade for specie on equal terms, he would
refufe the paper for the fake of a more certain medi
um.
It may be said that experience hath contradicted this
reasoning. If her sentence is against us, we muftbe wrong,
but perhaps, that sentence is miflaken. We must remem
ber, that when the money was firft issued it was to a peo
ple used to place confidence in paper. It was accompani
ed with promises, similar to those which they had been
accustomed to rely on. It was made for a purpose they
had much at heart. Tbe'r enthusiasm would hardly give
time for reflexion. The circulation of it at the va s ue
fpecified was a necessary confcquence, and that circulati
on having taken place, the few who had not confidence,
found it would purchase of the many who had ; wherefore,
as it served to fatisfy their immediate wants, they also
would naturally receiveit. Add to this, that the general
determination of the people, and their good opinion of the
Congress was so great, that no person dared openly sug
gest a doubt of the future redemption. For whatever so
lid rationing such doubt might have arift w from, or been
supported by, it certainly would then have been pla
ced to the account of difaffsaion. Nay, it is more than
probable, that if any man out of Congress, had hazarded
the idea of an intentional depreciation, the people would
have waftted out such an insult on that refpeded Body,
with the blood of the offender. There is then an infinite
difference between the two cases. But if we consult expe
rience in a more similar instance, we shall find, that her
unerring decree is decidedly in our favour. What was the
conduct of those who really entertained doubts as to the fu
ture value? Did they not shut up their stores, conceal
their goods, leave their grain unthrefhed, and the like ?
Were net the firft regulations made expressly with the
view of pußifhing difaffefted persons ? And were not the
terms tory and monopolizer very early considered as of
the fame import ? But this is not all : We must all remem
ber thelate situation of things, when by an attempt made
I ^^M
GENERAL
TUESDAY,
O R
[ Published every Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. ]
in feme publications to (hew the propriety of redeeming
our paper at a depreciated rate, the rapidity of deprecia
tion was so accelerated as to give an appearance of reason
to (he very doctrines which occasioned it. Under these
circumflances, many persons refufed to traffic for any other
money than specie; but fincethat period, when the paper
had obtained a more fixed value, the fame persons recei
ved it with equal, and in fomeinftauces with greater rea
diness.
The reader's own judgment and reflection will convince
him without further proof, that if the intended deprecia
tion were declared, it would fail of the effed. Let u$
next suppose it to be concealed, and them the firft idea
which presents itfelf is the violation of public faith.
It hath been already observed, that our paper isa pro
mifemade by Government on the part of those who pos
sess the land, labour, and commodities of the country.
This idea cannot be too well fixed in our minds. When
A purchases a commodity es Bwhat does be give? Net
specie but the prumife of Government for so much spe
cie at a future period. Not only in the aft of emitting
therefore is this procnife made, it is reiterated by the pub
lic officers who convey it from the Treasury to individu
als; n>y, more; it is confirmed in every private bargain. If
A being indebted to B assigns in payment a promissory
note, which C bad given him, C becomes B's debtor in
stead of A § but as this is purely optional, C makes no
new contrast with B, who relies upon the original pro
mise made to A. On the contrary, if A delivers in pay
ment a promissory note of Government, that is, if he pays
the debt with paper, then the Government having by law
compelled B to accept their paper in extinguishment of
A's debt, they of consequence make a new contrad with
him for the redemption of it. This being the case, what
can be more dishonest than to continue issuing such notes,
in order to reduce their value. If the baleful effeH be
produced, it is of no confcquenfe in what mode the cause
operates. To poison is as wicked as to flab, nor was it
ever yet heard of, that the guilt of murder could be atoned
by the clean and clever manner of performing it. The
iniquity of breaking public promises dire&ly is evident.
Can the breaking them indirectly mend the matter ? Or in
other words, will the weight of a crime be lessened by the
addition of hypocrisy?
But further, it is confeffea on all hands that taxes fhopld
be railed from individuals in proportion to their wealth.
Depreciation on the contrary raises its tax in the greatest
potable disproportion. He who by the fuccefsful efforts
of twenty years unremitted industry, had gained a little
competence in money, is taxed at least nineteen (hillings
in the pound, while his neighbour who possesses a coun
try alrroft equal to that of a German Prince is not taxed
a (hillings
Apain : If Government can ever be juftified in making
a difference as to the proportion of taxes to be paid, that
difference Ihould be in favour of its best and most faithful
fubjefts, but depreciation operates most on thofewho have
received most of the paper, and he who never would re
ceive it at all, eludes the tax entirely.
L.flly, a wife government will always encourage and
reward industry and frugality, and for the fame reason,
it will difeounteuance and punilh idleness and dissipation,
but if the theory and prance of depreciation be eflablidi
eu and adopted, then it will follow, that he who laboured
most and wafled least, would pay the heaviest tax, and
he who wafted most and laboured least, would pay the
Lgßteft.
This new doflrine, then, of depreciation, founded on
the funpofed propriety of taxing money, involves in it as
necessary consequences, that those who fliould receive it,
from their confidence in, and attachment to government,
would be defrauded, and these who ihould refufe it, would
benefit by the fraud. That those whohad industriously
added to the wealth of the State, would lose the fruits of
their industry, for the fake of the lazy and dissolute ; and
that those who had been compelled to accept the paper,
would be as effeaually robbed by the two a&s of govern
ment taken together, as they would have been by the one
aft ofa highway-man or house-breaker.
I shall orbear to mention the frauds which public offi
cers are excited to commit, by a knowledge that the de
preciating money placed in their hands for the public ser
vice, may by a seasonable invefture for private purposes,
produce an amazing profit, and yet their accountsappear
to beperfe&ly square and just On thisfubjed I feel too much
to speak with temper, besides it is not my obje& to in
flame but to inform. Peace be with them, if bosoms like
theirs can harbour peace.
But let us now suppose, that all objections to the mode
could possibly be obviated, still there remains another
question, whether the pre-fuppofed tax on money is a
good one? This again divides itfelf into two points, firft,
whether it be right to lay a tax on specie ? And fecondlyj
whether if so, it be also right to tax the paper wbi h re
prefentsit? These questions should be examined with ac
curacy, because they bid fair to occur frequently in the
course of our public affairs. Admitting then, for the
prefect, that a tax on specie is right, let us examine the
other.
f&@m^^
'i ol<
^W^^CT
THE
IBO^^O
ADVERTISER
FEBRUARY 29, 1780.
- Taxes should be laid and levied upon the wealth of th e
State. If in any society, the wealth, that is the land, la
bour and commodities were worth 9,900,000 dollars, and if
there were in it 100,000 dollars circulating specie as this sum
would when sent abroad, bring home an equivalent in other
commodities, the wealth of the State might be estimated at
10,000,000. Suppose in this situation of things, the go
vernment should issue amillion of paper, would the State
be richer than before ? Would it produce more of the ne
cessaries of life, or maintain a greater number of men?
Certainly it would oot, nor on the other hand, would the
wealth of the State be diminished, should the whole
paper be instantly defiroyed. But during the circu.
lation of it, every commodity would nominally be dearer,
perhaps at twenty prices, conftquently the nominal
wealth of that State would b^ 200,000 000. A tax, there
fore, of fix pence in the pound, on every man's pr^ perty,
would finK the whole. Let us fappofe that in such a State,
during the circulation of the paper, a part of the people,
either from diffidence as to the value, opposition to Go
vernment, or any other cause, fliould conflantly avoid re
ceiving it, or when received immediately <difpofe of it,
what would be the consequences of a tax on the paper wn.
der all these circumflances ? In the firft place the burden
would not fall on the wealth of the S:ate, but meerly on
the sign, or measure of that wealth. For instance, if A and
B being possessed of equal property, A had fold to B and re
ceived paper, B who had the wealth would pay nothing, A
who had only the sign would pay al). In the second piace'the
burthen would not fall on the whole people, but only on a
part, and that the most friendly to government. In the third
place, the doubts and difficulties as to receiving the pa
per would be tnereafed, because the tax would operate as
a premium to the money.bolder, to dispose of it, and as a
penalty upon his neighbour, for receiving it. Thus while
government by one law compel the reception of their
notes, they by another prohibit it. Of consequence the
notes and the government too would vaguely fluduate on
the furface of popular opinion, and like a Shattered hark
with tattered fails and broken oars, whafe rudder is loft
they would become the sport of those waves which cculd
not fail to overwhelm them.
The objections above stated have certainly some weight;
.but another and a weightier objection still remains. To
elucidate it let us suppose, that a merchant had issued his
promissory notes to the amount of 10,cool, and when call
ed on for payment, instead of vending a part of bis pro
perty, should offirhis creditors, ten fifteen or even nineteen
Killings in the pound. If he was able to pay the whole
he certainly would be considered as a knave, and if not as
a bankrupt. Where is the difference between paying on.
ly nineteen Killings in the pound, and a tax of or* (kil
ling in the pound laid by government on its own notes?
Would not the conclusion in both cases be the farce 1 If a
tax of one filling can be jufll laid, why not a tax of
ten ? Why not of nineteen ? # Why net fink the whole at a
single stroke ^ Can a fa^isfa&ory anfwtr be given to such
questions? If it cannot, what will become of that public
confidence on which not only the paper but the govern
ment itfelf must be supported ? F rthe security of their
rights mankind unite in the social slate. For these th y
place the sword in the hand of the Magfirate. For these
they have often resumed it. Let me not be misunderstood.
I do net pretend to blame the private fentim nts 0 any
individual, much less any collective body, and infinitely
less the deliberative ad of any State. I krow all the in
decency of presuming to set up private judgment as the
measure of public conduct. Ifh II tberefi re most sedu
lously endeavor to avoid it. I wish to avoid the (hadow
of offence to any, but I wish to give salutary caution to all.
I carneftly wish to remove the cloud of prejudice and dis
play the radiance of truth.
I am your friend,
An AMERICAN.
^^C^^^^W^XK
Philadelphia, February ?§, 1780.
To be SOLD by Public Vendue,
On Tuesday the 29th inst. at Ten o'clock in ehe fore
noon, at the late Here of John Galloway, deceased,
in Second-ttrett, opposite the City Tavern,
A LL his STOCK on hand of Dry Goods, and
I some Houfho^ Furniture, viz. broadcloths o va
rious colours, rattineis, (balloons, durants, kige
denims, corduroys, fuftaine, jeans, damafeus, bengals,
silk knit patterns, tambour waist bat patterns, Roffia
drilling, buckram, linens, cambrick" scars thrift, sew
ing silk and thread well affi rt%d, silk knee garters, mo
hair and metal buttons, &c. & .&.
MARY GALLOWAY, Executrix.
RICHARD PORTER, Executor.
The HIGHEST PRICE
IS GIVEN FOR
CLEAN LINEN RAGS,
BY
JOHN DUNL AP.
THE