The New-Jersey gazette — Burlington [N.J.], 1778-02-25 00:00:00, page 1

[Vol. I.] T HE [Numb, 13.]
NEW-JERSEY GAZETTE.
CT" HE reasons advanced in the enclosed letter, having
' full, convinced me of the abfardit, of a certain mea
sure, much talked of in some places of late ; and as the,
might perhaps, if handed to the public, have the like
^ood effect upon others, I cannot but <wijb you to give the
letter at large a place in ,our paper. Its not having
been defined for the public eye, avill, Iprefume, faffici
ently apologize for an, little inaccuracies that ma, be ob=
Served b, the curious. T. W.
Esteemed Friend,
"TC 7"°UR favour of the zoth of last month
/ I just now received, and am much
pleafcd with your clear and circumftan-
L tial account of the state of ouraffairs; and
■ also with your remarks upon some of the
late proceedings of government. Tn
the sequel, you are pleased to alk me, what objec
tions I have to taxing bonds, bills, and other special
ties, drawing interest ? To give you a full answer
to this question, would require more time than I can
at present spare. I will, however,. endeavoUr to
fend you a few of my objections in a short way.
First. The measure appears to me to be exception
able, in that it would probably be attended with
effects injurious to this State, in fettling our quota
of taxes with the other States. The computed
wealth of each State, may, hereafter, if not in the
firft instance, be the rule whereby to fix and regulate
its quota ; and as that will probably be taken from
the assessors duplicates, where bonds and bills (which
are really no part of the wealth of any country, far
ther than the value of the paper and parchment ex
tends) to be inserted in our duplicates, as part of our
property, it might be a means of railing the quota
of the date far beyond what it ought to be.
But left you should doubt the reality of what I
have said refpeding bonds and bills being no part of
the wealth of a country; I will state a case, that
perhaps will set it in a clear light. Let us suppose
New-Jersey to be, at this time, worth just one mil
lion sterling ; that the present proprietors fell it for
that sum, to such of the community as have no pro
perty, and take their bonds and bills for the money.
Here you fee bonds and bills would take place for a
million of money, without increasing the wealth of
the state one farthing: New-Jersey would still re
main to be worth but just one million. Which very
plainly Ihows, as I said before, that bonds and bills
are no part of the wealth of a country ; nor does it
iefs plainly show how absurd it would be to give them
a place in our duplicates.
idly. I objeft to the measure as impracticable.
Bonds and bills, like cash, are usually kept secret.
Some people perhaps would render an account of all
they have, others of part, and some of none. And
which way, let me ask, should we ever get rid of
this difficulty —of this total uncertainty—so as to
render the measure with any tolerable face ofjuftice
practicable ? For my part I fee no way : unless each
assessor should be obliged to examine upon oath or
affirmation, every person within his precinct, when
ever a new assessment is made, refpeding the bonds
and bills he or the may then have. Nor indeed
would this (though a curious piece of business) be
very likely to answer the end. For if men can hardly
swear the truth between neighbour and neighbour,
where they are at all connected with either fide,
much less would they be likely to do it between them
selves and the publick: and such frequent and ge
neral swearing, would naturally render an oath more
arid more familiar, and, in proportion, diminish the
force of the obligation. In short, I fear the constant
and strong temptation to perjury, that would attend
this kind of swearing, would so far get the better of
human virtue, as to render an oath of little or no
fignification. Perjury, like other crimes, would seem
to lose its criminality in proportion as it should be
come faffiionable.
" Vice is a monster of so frightful mien,
" As, to be hated, needs but to be seen;
" Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
" We firft endure, then pity, then embrace."
It might be observed too, that putting men upon
their oaths in cases where their own interest is at
flake, would be repugnant to one of the oldest and
most approved .maxims of our law. But then per
haps old maxims may not be worth our notice. For
tome of us, without one jot of experience in the bu
siness of legislation, and with but very little know
ledge of the law, and less of politicks, are so much
wifey thanour predeweflor, either here or in Britain,
To the Printer of the New-Jersey Gazette.
SIR,
WEDNESDAY, February 25, 1778.
fan. 2, 1778.
I admire the promoters of this curious scheme
have never, in their great zeal for justice and impar
tial dealing, thought of letting on foot a similar one
with regard to landlords and tenants. Surely it
would be as just to tax both landlord and tenant
for the property in the hands of the tenant, as to tax
the borrower and lender of money for the property
in the hands of the borrower. If it would be un
just to levy a two-fold tax in the former case, why
not in the latter • Some indeed lay they are for the
notwithstanding their great experience in legislative
affairs, their deligeht researches after political know
ledge, and the purest principles and theory of civil
government, as to be able to form for ourselves max
ims far superior to theirs, and to bring into exigence
schemes equally new and admirable.
It should ever be an invariable rule to make nothing
taxable but what is visible : and the moment we quit
this ground, we step into the dark, ridiculously to
grope after what we can never obtain.
The parliament of Britain have long been at their
wits end for ways and means whereby to raise sup
plies of cash adequate to the demands of the state;
and yet they have never, it any one instance, un
dertaken to tax bonds, bills or mortgages. Our
affcmblies too have ever avoided the measure. But
then what is that to us ? We fay they were all wrong.
Are we fore that we are right ? He who quits the
old beaten way, should firft take care to be well
advised of a better. There is frequently more in
old ways to recommend them, than we are at firft
aware of. Hence custom is said to be an argument
of right: and this argument is directly against us.
Custom too, is an apology for doing wrong. But if
we should depart from the old ground, or mode of
taxation, what apology will there be found for us, in
case that should prove to be wrong ?
People are generally best fatisfied with what they
have been most used to. It is not fufficient that you
lay no greater burden upon a man than he has been
accustomed to bear: You must lay it upon the very
fame shoulder that he has been used to carry it upon ;
othetwife he will feel himfelf uneasy, and perhaps
give you trouble.
We may think our leaders have all hitherto gone
wrong : and we may have honest intentions to re&i
fy their errors : but then don't let us be tod hasty in
making the attempt. A fecoud thought frequently
corrects the firft; and this year's experience may
render us much more capable of rectifying the errors
of our ancestors, than at prefect we are ; or it may
poflibly convince us, that they have left us none to
rectify. It often happens that we think others err,
merely because we have not judgment fufficient to
difeover the reason and rectitude of their conduct.
And when this is the case, time, and a dispassionate
inquiry, usually prove the best remedies.
3d1,. I object to the measure as unjust. It would
raise a two-fold tax upon property. Suppose, for
instance, A to have a. farm worth one thousand
pounds, and no other estate ; that B, who has no
estate, purchases the farm of A for the sum menti
oned, and gives him a bond for the money, pay
able with interest from the day of purchase. Here,
'tis plain, that A and B, taken together, would have
but one thousand pounds worth of property ; yet
according to our scheme, they must be taxed as tho'
they had two —B for the farm, and A for its value.
A most glaring piece of iniquity ! iniquity however
that attends the measure, trace it where you will.
For if B had borrowed a thousand pounds of A, and
laid it out in a farm, or other taxable property, the
case would have been just the fame —B must have
paid tax for the property, and A for its value.
As the property is ever in the hands of the bor
rower, there, and there only, it can with propriety
be taxed. And if upon a general scale, interest is
so high that the borrower cannot afford to pay the
tax, let it be reduced ; or let him be authorifed to
deduct the tax out of the interest when he pays it.
Either of these ways would be practicable and just ;
but the former, perhaps, would be much the most
eligible. Our duplicates might then remain as they
are —they would not exhibit an exaggerated idea of
our wealth —they would not be disgraced by partial
accounts of bonds and bills, mere imaginary property;
nor would our assessors be degraded by being turned'
into so many legal pimps—by being compelled to
pry into people's private and secret concerns---to
inquire after their bonds and bills, debts and credits ;
matters that the publick have in reality no right to
meddle with ; and which genuine pimps alone would
care to inquire after. Men of honour and delicate
feelings would disdain the ungracious talk. They
would blush to alk the questions, and they would
scorn to give the answers.
better, because it would lessen the tax upon the rest
of the community. (O how merciful! ) But would
not the former also ? And were we to tax red hair
and long noses, it would have just the fame effect ;
and yet I suppose nobody ever dreamt of considering
them as proper objects of taxation.
You lend me, on easy terms (which the legal terms
are ever to be supposed to be) your money to make
an estate with. Now the question is, whether you,
or I, ought to pay tax for this money, whilst I pos
sess it ? For that we should both pay tax for it, is
really a proposition too ridiculous to deserve any se
rious attention. And were you to ask me the ques
tion, I am sure I should be ashamed to answer, that
you ought to pay the tax. I may very well be sup
posed to derive a much greater profit from the mo
ney than you will whilst it remains in my hands :
And upon this supposition, your paying tax for it
must be the height of injustice. But really I fee no
injustice in my paying tax for it, whilst I possess it
with a view of gain ; even though the benefit I de
rive from it, should not be equal to yours. For up
on what principle of equity can I expert to have
your property on equal terms of advantage with you ?
If you riik your money in my hands upon such
terms, as to enable me to pay tax for it, and at the
fame time to increase my estate fafter by the use of
it, than I otherwise could have done, with the fame
care and industry, I am clearly beholden to you for
that extraordinary gain. And why the profit I de
rive from your money, should exceed, or equal
yours, in order to render it just for me to pay the
tax, I cannot conceive ; though I know it is a doc
trine held forth by some. If by the utmost ftretcli
of industry and care, I can now clear but fifty pounds
a year, and by your lending me one thousand pounds,
at seven per cent per annum, taxable in my hands,
I am enabled to clear fifty pounds a year more ; ant
I to quarrel witli the contrast fublifting between
you and me as hard or unjust, because the gain I
derive from your property is not equal to yours ?
Surely if your money enables me to double my in
come, without any additional fatigue of body or
mind, I ought to think myfelf exceedingly well dealt
by, and greatly obliged to you for riiking it in my
hands. And was Ito ask you to pay tax for it whilst
I possess it, it would certainly evidence a degree of
meanness, that you would most heartily despise.
But then perhaps what would be mean—what would
be defpifable in an individual to ask, may well enough
become a legillature to enforce.
The property being universally taxable in the hands
of the borrower, it is to be supposed that all legis
latures, whoever undertook to regulate the interest
of money, would naturally regulate it accordingly—
that they would fix it so low as tb enable the bor
rower to pay the tax. And this being done, how
barefacedly unjust would it be still to compel the
lender to pay it ? or indeed to pay any tax at all for
the money lent ? Surely there is not a man of sense
and justice, but what would blush at the attempt.
4tbl). I object tb the measure on account of the
present great depreciation of calh. Whatever mo
ney might have been heretofore, it is certainly now
so fallen in value, as to be utterly unable to bear
a tax. Great numbers of the inhabitants of this
state, who depend chiefly upon the interest! of their
money for support, know not, at this hour, which
way to get bread to eat, and cloaths to wear. And
Avail government add to their distress, by saddling
them with a burden equally oppreflive and unpre
iidented : A burden not only unjust in rts nature,
but which they are by no means able to bear? Thbfe
indeed who have money at interest, and yet are in
some kind of profitable business, as farmers, mer
chants, mechanicks, &c. may perhaps, from the great
gain they derive from their refpd&ive empfoyments,
be able to bear the tax with feme degree of case :
but among those who may more properly be calleci
the monied part of the community, from their Be
ing chiefly supported by the interest of their money,
I believe there are but few, very few, but what
would feel it as a grievous oppression. If when
every hundred pounds they had would bring them
seven per cent per annum, and the mceffiries of life
were not half as dear as they now are, they could
but just bring the year about ; it is easy to conceive,
that they mutt now be reduced to the greatest dif
ficulty, and that a small additional burden would be
exceedingly hard to bear. And that there are great
numbers in such a situation cannot be doubted.
Nor can it be doubted, by any who have thefeeling®
of humanity, or ate endowed with the common
principles of justice, but that their case 'demands
relief from government, father than oppression. Es-
[For the remainder fee the fourth A&)