The New-Jersey gazette — Burlington [N.J.], 1778-09-02 00:00:00, page 1

Mr. Collins,
IN perusing your ufeful papers, those pieces
which have a particular relation to the policy
of New-Jersey generally draw my most fcrious
attention. The happiness and well-being of
its community, which lays near my heart,
frompts me to it. I confer the legislative
and executive bodies in the State, as allo the fubjetts,
for whose benefit laws are made and executed, as fal
lible and imperfect mem;&mdtherefore esteem any
hints, offered with deferctffid prudence to either
of them, among the happyimeans for securing and
promoting the happiness of a people, and the liberty
of the press, (the medium of conveying them) one of
the greatest advantages to civil society. Hence is
evident, that the duty of those who presume to offer,
their thoughts to the publick, is not to aim at the de-'
traction of their neighbour, raised above them in
the esteem and confidence of their country, (such
views are hatched ig^&l) but the real good of
their country, I presume their opinions ought
to be offered with judgment, prudence and
candour, and urg'd' with judicious and inlid ar
guments. If this be confefled, what treatment do
the labours of such authors deserve, as give us for
arguments ridicule, low buffoonery and mere lurmucs
of the principles and views of other mens aciit ns ?—
And the duty of those to whom the arguments are
addressed undoubtedly is to peruse them with atten
tion, arid reap all possible advantage from them
for the regulation of conduct in their different
fphercs of adion. The man in office, who conceits
himfelf above instruction, or disdains receiving it from
any he may regard as his inferior, I hefithte not to
pronounce unfit for any office? "And it behoves the
community at large, particularly in free and popular
states, to. improve their minds, in order that they may
become qualified to serve their country in their turn.
Notwithstanding the genera! consent to the necessary
qualifications in a writer, before mentioned, yet the
contrary practice is too much pursued by many, and too
eagerly raadeufeofby others to bad purposes. I confefs
if we have under consideration the reasonings of a man
who is juffly fufpeded of fubtile, designing and disinge
nuous praftices to promote his sinister views to his
own private emolument, we have the more reason to
examine his arguments, and endeavour to discover their
fallacy and expose their tendeny ; butto treat even such
arguments with mere feurrility and buffoonery, will
by no means answer the necessary purposes ; and thus
to treat the argumentation made use of in the pursuit
of truth, equity and justice, deserves the highest con
tempt. A few pieces, Sir, in your ufeful paper, have
convinced me that New-Jersey is not free of such
contemptuous characters ; and therefore am appre
hensive, should I presume to offer my thoughts on
any fubje&, in order to promote justice, equity, 4
truth, and thus the weal of civil society, I may meet
with antagonists who will endeavour to confute my
arguments only by brandishing them as felfiih. To
blupt the edge of such weapons as much as possible
be! ore an attack, I beg leave to give some descriptive
account of rayfelf, while I, in conformity to the pre
sent euftora, conceal my name. What I am now
about to fay is matter of fadt, and not a romance. By
birth I am an American from generation to genera
tion ; so that my ancestors have been among the vir
tuous few who have had to struggle, in the firft settle
ment of America, with a howling wilderness and its
cruel savages. As to civil principles, a real friend to
democratical government; one who has interested
himfelf in the present contest, as far as his sphere of
tuition would permit, to the extent of his abilities for
fire preservation of the liberty and independence of
America. As to my circumstances in life, I grate
fully acknowledge the favour of pofleffing a comfort
able subsistence in real estate, which my own family
improves ; and I hope what I have due will about ad
just and balance the accounts agamft me. As to of
fices in the civil or military department, I hold none,
and do not expert I ever shall : I have not the least
profpsrfc of any personal advantages but such as I may
reap r common with the rest of the community ;
and therefore if felf-intereft sways me, it mult be such
as is jhe interest of the community; and I frankly
own tills t® be m, darling object.
I beg of my readers to excuse the length of my
preamble; I had my reasons for it. I shall now pro
ceed to what I had particularly in view. I have read,
Sir, with serious attention, in your 13th number, the
letter of T. W. to his friend, and also the answer to
it by Equal Taxer, in No. 16. Ido honestly declare
thrt I know not who are the authors of those per
formances, nor the friend the letter was addressed to ;
but I am pefuaded the former gave no cause to the
latter for the abusive language he so liberally makes
NEW-JER SEY - GAZETTE.
[Vol. I.]
WEDNESDAY, September 2 , 1778.
use of in his animadvetfions oh T. W's letter, ftig
matifing his antagonist with the opprobrious epithets
of usurer, in the odious sense of the appellation, a poor
Jorl in cubic/s the revolution and independence of these
States fuel?, giving him leave to vomit it up or choak :
A miser; poor creature, whom, he declares, was be
to keep upon bis knees, be would be charitable enough to
fling a copper t% to be quit es him, as a Prarifee,
whose heart "Arrays him. Is this the language
of a gentleman ? is this the proper method to
lead our fellow-creatures to the knowledge and prac
tice of juftiA, equity and truth ? Is this any proof
that Equal faxer is a whig and a friend to his coun
try? I leaVe the answers to men of candour. The
fubje& in debate is, the equity, justice and pi oprietv of
taxing money drawing interest. A fubjedt, perhaps,
' q@'c important than fuperficial reasoners may appre
q^d. The conclusion in the affirmative makes in my
. f&fyr; I would, however, always wish to be guided
tSfle fide of equity and justice, and have therefore
enfetvoured to weigh arguments on both tides: I
have duly considered those of T. W. and the animad
versions of Equal Taxer on them ; and beg leave to
offer a few observations upon the subject, as treated'
by these gentlemei
It appear^to me that 'he Bth article in the Confe
deration of the States removes the firft objection of
T. W.
The fecon'd' objection of T. W. is, the impractica
bility of th, folseme. I think the spirit of his reasoning
shows that he doe c not mean an abfotae impofkbility,
but an impracticability of carrying it into execution
with any tolerate degree of equity and justice to the
part of the unit, concerned in it. The anirhad
verter seems to have taken him in the firft sense. The
bonds, &c. in a deft ate to him as his horse locked
in a stable, and his improved lands equally known to
his neighbours. I can not believe that the greatest fa
vourer of this scheme will be able to give any credit
to this assertion Hard necessity seems, however, to
extort from him the conceffron that it will prove
somewhat more difficult to come at the knowledge of
bonds, &c. than horses and lands ; and therefore he
proposes two ways, by either of which the difficulty
might be removed. The firft is, kt bonds, tc. not given
up, be forfeited. But would this penalty bear propor
tion to that of other taxables ? Excessive penalties may
become real grievances. Farther, does he mean that
every bond not given up, and if all the bonds are given
up, but not their whole amount, are all to be forfeit
ed? as under the tyrannic government we have dif
'carded, the lead contraband difeovered on board, the
whole ship and cargo was forfeited. If only the sum
not given up, then the poor innocents who are not
well acquainted with accounts and tricks might get
severely trounced ; but men of a contrary character,
would find easy means to elude the law. How would
the assessor find out that any bonds or notes, &c. were
kept back ? suppose he difeovered bonds, &c. in a
man's delk, to the amount of a thousand pounds, and
that man declared that he owed to the amount of
the fame sum to others. Here the man's word must
be taken, or he must either swear to it or produce the
counter bonds: The latter is impossible; because
they are not attainable by him unless paid. And as to
the former, I hope heaven will prevent such a pro
fanation of oaths among us, as naturally would arise
from such temptations to perjury as felf-intereft af
fords. The other is, let the borrower pay the tax, and
deduct it from the interest. This, I confefs, appears the
most reasonable: Let it however be considered, what
the end in view would be, if the borrower was to
have that sum deducted from his tax, there would be
some inducement for him to give it up; but if he
must hill pay the fame as if he owed none, will he
have any thing to counterpoise the lender's ill-will,
and the disagreeable situation of thereby giving an
opportunity to all who may fee the assessor's dupli
cate, to know how much he is in debt, and avail
themselves of it? And yet even this method is not
without .its infurmountablc difficulties. Only let us
recollect how many thousands of pounds have been,
and doubtless will be, borrowed from persons in other
States. In such case the borrower must pay tax for
the property purchased with the money; he alio
must pay for the money it was purchased with, and
the lender pay for it in the State he lives. Here will
be a treble tax for the fame property. Our laws
bind not in the other State ; the borrower comes into
that, is there arrested, and the bond and full interest
is recovered. Will this prove an advantage to the
poor borrower, in whose favour Equal Taxer seems
so much to plead ? If money from other States be ex
empted, how long will it be till the men of wealth
will have all their money in other States, and borrow
ers here owe all there ? A few of the middle class
THE
Here I beg leave to observe, that in proportion as
men have no interfl to pay or receive, the, become diJin
terfled in this dispute; for, suppose the firm to be
raided be 50,000!. will it not be perfe&ly equal to such
men's share of tax in that sum whether the lender or
the borrower pays, since only the one or the other
is to do it.
T. W. has offered some reasons to show, that as
this property is found in the aftual possession of the
borrow er, he ought to pay the tax ; and that it is the
business of the legislature so to regulate the interest
that he might be able to do it. I was much surprised
to find that the animadverter had made no remarks
on this part of the argument, which was the only part
that left room for fair debate.
[The remainder to he in our next.]
PARIS, April 10.
THEY write from Nantz, that a wealthy and well
known merchant has been put under arrest there
for having carried on a secret correfponder.ee with
the Engliib.
Bourdeaux, March 26. The number of English ships
detained here amount to eleven. The reason give.
among us, whose sums are fmail, and acquaintances
in other States few, will be the only persons who will
pay this tax. T. W. corroborates this argument by
examples of our predecessors, both in Britain and
New-Jersey. The animadverter's answer to this re
mark appears to me mere feurrility and low buf^
foonery. His answer plainly amounts to this: The
parliaments of George the third have become corrupt,
venal and tyrannical ; therefore if T. W. appeals to
any of their predecessors, he becomesjuftly fufpe&ed.
cf being a tory, the most despicable of the human
race 1 If such argumentation holds true, what must
we judge of that august body the Continental Con
gress, who have, in their public declarations, so
liberally bestowed the epithets of virtuous, wife and
brave upon the predecessors of the present Britons.
If he would have enervated this corroboration of the
argument, he fliould have proved that British parlia
ments, in their pereft and best times, did tax bonds,
&e. This would have answered his purpose.
The third objection of T. W. is the injustice of it.
Here the arimadverter assumes an air of argumenta
tion ; but I confefs that amitift all the parade and
ihow of geometrical demonstration, I can find no
conclusion that bears any reference to the matter in
debate. The proposition which T. W. proves, is
this : ifthe lender and borrower both pay tax, the one
for the money, the other for the property purchased with
it, that then the fame property pays a double tax.
Equal Taxer might as well have tried all his skill in.
geometry to demonstrate that two lines drawn paral
lel will meet; and his Ikill in arithmetic, that two
and three do not make five, as to prove the former
proposition to be falte. It became him then to have ac
knowledged the proposition ; and if he still persisted in
his notion of going on with the double tax on such
property, to have proved it to be jvfl and equitable.
And here he would have received just as much assist
ance from the.maxims in morality, as in the former
from those in geometry. It appears impossible to me
that men of virtuous principles, who are capable to
underhand the matter, can plead for a thing which is
so flagrantly unjust. I acknowledge that men of my
circumstances in life, who possess unencumbred real
estates, may reap benefits from such a tax, and such
alone can do ; but God forbid that I should call any
thing just which in its own nature is unjust, far the
fake of lucre or gain.
The animadverter lays down as a maxim, proper
ty is defended, therefore property must be taxed. This
is granted; but let him ihow why this property
should pay double tax to what other property does.
He endeavours to illustrate the application of the
maxim to the case in hand, by this process: Bpur
chafes a farm from A for a 1000/. and gives bis bond
and mortgage upon the land for the money. B having
no money when he purchased it, is fappofed that the
whole of the property belongs to A. Is this any proof
that both A and B ought to pay the tax ? Is it pro
bable that a double tax will prevent a suit at law to
difpoflefs B and frrip his family? Can you persuade
yourfelf to believe it? In all probability you cannot ;
and why then all that cumhuftion and hvrly-burly
made in consequence of a supposition you yourfelf do
not believe? Perhaps Equal Taxer means that in the
case before Rated B fliould pay none, but A the whole
of the tax. If this be his meaning, he has at least
given up that part of the dispute which T. W. proves
to be unjust ; and then the whole of the remainder is^
whether the lender or borrower ought to pay this tax?!
and in fact this only can be debated by men of vir
tuous principles.
[Numb. 39.]