Vermont telegraph. [volume] (Brandon [Vt.]) 1828-1843, 1836-12-14

IL
ide whether such a result be consistent
With the true objects of our Government.
Should surplus be permitted to accumu-
ate, beyond the appropriations, 1t must be
etained in the Treasury, as it now is, or
distributed among the people of the States.
To retain it in the Treasury, unemployed
n any way, is impracticable. Its, besides,
against the genius of our free institutions to
ock I'D in vaults the treasure of the nation.
To take from the people the right of bearing
arms, and put their weapons OF defence IN
the hands Of standing army, would be
scarcely more dangerous to their Liberties
than to permit the government to accumu
late immense amounts of treasure beyond
the surplus necessary to its legitimate wants.
Such a treasure would doubtless be employ
ed, al some time, as it has been In other
countries, when opportunity tempted am
bitfon.
To collect it merely for distribution to the
states, would seem to be highly impolitic,
if not as dangerous as the proposition to re-
tain it in the treasury. The shortest refec-
ton must satisfy every one that to require
the people 10 pay taxes 10 the government,
merely that they may be Faid back again, is
sporting with the substantial interest of the
country, and no system which produces such
result can be expected to receive the public
countenance. Nothing could be gained by
it, even if each individual who contributed
a portion of the tax could receive back
promptly tire same portion. But it is appa-
rent that no system of the kind can ever be
enforced, which will not absorb considera-
BILE portion Of the money, to be distributed
in salaries and commissions to the agents
employed in the process, and in the various
losses and depreciations which arise from
other causes and the practical effect Of such
an attempt must ever be to burden the peo-
pie with taxes, not for purposes beneficial to
them, but to swell the profits of deposite
banks, and support band Of useless public
officers.
A distribution to the people is impracti-
cable and unjust in other respects. Hwould
be taking one mans property and giving it
TO another. Such would be the unavoidable
result of rule of equality, (and none other
is spoken of, or would be likely to be adopt
ed) inasmuch as there is no mode by which
the amount of the individual contributions
Of our citizens to the public revenue can be
ascertained. We know that they contribute
unequally, and a rule therefore that would
distribute to them equally, would be liable
to all the objections which apply to the
principle Of an equal division of property
To make the general government the instru-
ment of carrying this odious principle into
effect, would be at once to destroy the means
of its usefulness, and change the character
designed for it by the trainers of the consti-
tuition.
But the more extended and injurious con-
sequences likely to result frem a policy
which would collect a surplus revenue for
the purpose of distributing it, may be forci-
bly, illustrated by an examination Of the eff
fects already produced by the present de-
posite act. This act, although certainly de
signed to secure the safe-keeping of the pub
| lie revenue, is not entirely free in its ten
denotes from many of the objections whict
apply to this principle of distribution. The
government had, without necessity, recelv
ed from the people large surplus, which
instead of being employed as heretofore
and returned to them by means Of the public
expenditure, was deposited with sundry
banks. The banks proceeded to make loans
upon this surplus, and thus converted 1t int
banking capital and in this manner it ha
tended to multiply bank charters, and ha
had a great agency in producing spirit o
wild speculation. The possession and U.s.
Of the proPerty out of which this surplu
was created, belong 10 the people, but tn
government has transferred its possession
to incorporated banks, whose interest an,
effort it is, 10 make large profits out of it
use. This process need only be stated, t
show its injustice and bad policy.
And the same observations apply to tn
influence which is produced by the step
necessary to collect, as we'll as 10 distrbut
such a revenue. About three ffths Ct a
f the duties on imports are paid in the city {
: New Y ork, but it is obvious that the mean
to pay those duties are drawn from ever
quarter Of the Union. Every citizen in e'
cry state, VINO purchases and consumes a
' article which has paid duty at that por
' contributes to the accumulating mass. tn
}, surplus collected there must, therefore, b
+ made up of monies or property withdraw
4 from other points and other states. Thu
o the wealth and business of every regC
/ from which these surplus funds procee'
o must be to some extent in ured, while tn
= of the place where the funds are conce
n trated, and are employed in banking, a
h proportionably extended. But both in ma
= ing the transfer Of the funds which are fir
q necessary to pay the duties and collect Il
q surplus-and in making the re-transfe
= which becomes necessary when the tin
: arrives for the distribution Of that surplus
=, there is a considerable period when Il
! funds cannot be brought into use; and it
n manifest that beside the loss inevitable fire
such an operation, its tendency is to produ
If fluctuations in the business of the COUNT
70 which are always productive of specuI
- ton, and detrimental to the interests of re
" ular trade. Argument can scarcely be n
ID cessary to show that measure of this oh;
IS acter ought not to receive further legislati
ii encouragement.
n By examining the practical operation
n the ratio for distribution, adopted in the {
posite bill of the last session, we shall d
n cover other features that appear equally ,
OF iectionable. Let it be assumed, for
at sake of argument, that the surplus monte:
he be deposited with the states have been c
I'd lected, and belong to them, in the ratio