Virginia Argus. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1796-1816, 1814-12-28

of the bill, which pledges the continuation
in force Of this bin. for the purpose of es
tabliShing ar adequate revenue 10 nay the
expenses of the government, the pri.cipaf
aud interest Of the public debt. &c. and to
create an adequate sinking fund, So. Tin the
same manner as all the internal duties enact
ed during the present session are proposed
tn he pIedged.)
On this motion p very Interesting brt de-
su,.ory debate ar~se, in which Messrs. Yan>
rev. Calhoun, khea. Lovndes and t;aifair
advocated the motion, and Messrs. Enpes,
Inrersoll. Potter, Dnval. Findley, Grosve-
nor, Hawkins, Webster, Pickering, New.
ton and Nelson opposedit.
The advocates of the melton urged. that
they had no wish to defeat the passage of
this bill, bur that tho spirit Of the ~constitu
ton required that q direct tax should be laid
only for ore year, and continued no longer
than impctious necessity required /; that the
constitution having giycn to Congress .the
power to control the taxes-to part with it
for a series of years, would he TO surrender
their constitutional power. inasmuc't as they
could no.. after giving the proposed pledge.
withhold the taxes without thu consent Of
the two o'hcr branches of the government /,
that, whilst the pledge to be given might
saddle tie nation forever with a land tag, Il
rvss lot reccsscry tothe maintenance OF the
uo,ic credit. Because a Sufficient sum wns
lelgcd. by the calls already passed, for
he anrra, payment of the interest and a
pcrt;on of the y, incips, Of the public debt !;
kat this di,covery of supporting public ere,
lit bv pledging AN annual land tax. was OF
recent date. for, during the administrations
ofyYs shingtor and Adams, when the gov
crnment would naturally be post solicitous
for the establishment and invigorntioa cf
pubic credit. = direct tax had been imposed
but one year, and was not then pledged, as
now proposed ; that il was flying too sud.
denly from ore extreme to the other, after
refusing to pledge any thing, to pledge all
the resources nf the government of every
description to the public creditor. Various
arguments were also urged against apledge
for the continuance of thi8 taX, derived
from IT'S general character: il was a tax it
was said, unequal in KS character on differ
ent sections of the union, and unequal 10 it's
operation frequently when NOT Unequal in
its amount, owing TO the local advantages
and disadvantages of different sections Of
the nation, and the disburseu -nts Of the
government therein. 1t was, besides, ar
gsed that direct taxation was the princi
pal resource of the state governments for
GdNsVt " abtt hnAuiG fuQ
relative situation, they cannot resort to in.
ternal taxa,ion-and therefore a direct tax
ought NOT to BE Svercharged, nor too long
p~ersevered in.
The arguments in opposition to the mott,
on were various, as they proceeded from nBe
or the o,hcr side of the house. They were
in general TO this effect The argument a.
gaiEst pairing with the power OF taxation, il
was said, would apply as well to the pledges
contained ia the Internal tax bills against
which it had not leeu suggested as To this
and was besides incopciu,ive if correct, in>
asmuch as the house, BIZ withholding appro-
pria,ians, over which it had an efficient
check, could at stytipe CoerCe the other
branches Of tfie goyerHInens 70 repeal or mo
diy existing taAes. That, though in ordi-
nary tunes, The pied.es already given of the
interna! taxes might be sufficient to main
tain public credit it was necessary row to
resuscitate that credi,-fa The words of one
gentleman. " to dig IL from the crave That
this was a dnty peculiarly devolving en-
those who had declared ard supported the
war. and On whom devo,vcd the RESPONSE
bility for lis success or failure. That IL
wolid be highly Unjust and partial, after
piedg,ng the taxes on the materials and la.
Dor Of the a~rtizan, mechanic, mud poor retail
lcr-afscr. intact, pledgiugt tie Z on the
industry OF the con.mrnity--vto refuse tn
pledge the tax on lis solid wealth and Ian
ded property, &c Tha, this pledge of the
}and-tax, as a foundation fer borrowing
money, would be worth much more than
all the Internal taxes put together, because
its product woald be certain, Whilst the
products of TIE other taxes must be matter
Of estimate and coljectpre. The argument
that a sufficient amount Of taxes was al
ready pledged to sustain the public credit,
Sas AcDied any weight, because it made the
eligibility Of the taxes to be pledged depend
GU the priority OF passage of several bills,
which were Intended and calculated to form
parts of a general system of TAXATION &c.
Various other points were brought into
disc ssion, as to the ~intenticn Of the trainers
Of the constitution in regard to the frequeR-
C, and pernisnencyo of a land tax &c. and on
tlie merits of the presest and former sys-
tens Of finance, which could not be here
detailed with any justice to those who intro.
duce them.
The question being at length taken on
this ~rioticn, was decided in the negative by
yeas 4S-nays los
MI. Potter moved so to amend the bill as
10 aiio no the individual who shall pay his
proportion Of he Direct Tax on the list day
cf June Annually, a deduction of IL per
cent. fien its amount and if not so paid, 10
him who shall pas it on the LIST day of Oct
annually a deduction Of 6 per cent ON its
amour ; and that if not then paid the said
amount stial bear interest until paid which
motion was negstived.
Nir. Keonedy Of n. G. moved to amend
the bill so as to reduce the total Of he Direct
Tex FROM six millions to four millions FIVE
hundred Thousand dollars; which motion
war ntgaived.
Mir irserselI made a motion to amend