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

the basis of representation the basis OF taxa.
ton. the trainers of the constitution intend
ed to euuaIize the burdens which are neces-
sary to support the government and the |
adoption of this ratio whileit accomplished |
this object, was also the means of adjusting
other great topics arising out Of the conflict
ing views respecting the political equality
Of the various members Of the confederacy.
Whatever therefore disturbs the liberal spir- |
it of the compromises which established |
rule of taxation So just and equitable, and
which experience has proved to be so we'll |
adapted to the genius and habits Of our peo-
pie. should be received with the greatest
caution and distrust.
A bare inspection, in the annexed table,
of the differences produced by the ratio used
| in the deposite act, compared with the re-
suits of a distribution according to the ra-
ito of direct taxation, must satisfy every IN
preiudiced mind that the former ratio con-
travenes the spirit of the constitution, and
produces degree Of injustice in the opera
ton of the federal government, which
would be fatal to the hope Of perpetuating
! it.
By the ratio of direct taxation, for exam
pie, the state of Delaware, in the collection
Of 10000, 900 of revenue, would pay into
the Treasury S189, 716; and in the distribu-
ton of $50, 900, 900 she wou Id receive back
from the government, according to the ra-
tic of the deposite bill, the sum of 1906, l22
and similar results would follow the com
parison between the small and the large
states throughout the Union thus realizing
to the small states an advantage which
would be doubtless as unacceptable to them
as motive for incorporating the principle
in any system which would produce it, as
it would be Inconsistent with the rights and
expectations of the large states.
1t was certainly the intention Of that
i provision of the constitution which de-
cIares that "all duties, imposts and excis-
es'' shall ''be uniform throughout the U.
States,' to make the burdens of taxation
fall equally upon the people, in whatever
state of the Union they may reside. But
what would be the value Of such an uni
form rule, ifthe monies raised by it could
be immediatel Y returned by different
one, which will give to the people of some
states much more, and to those of others
much less than their fair proportions p
Were the federal government to exempt
In express terms the imports, products
and manufactures of some portions Of the
country from all duties, while it imposed
heavy ones on others, the injustice could
not be greater
1t would be easy to show how, BY the
operation Of such principle, the largest
states OF the Union would not only have
to contribute their just share towards the
support of the federal government, but al
so have to bear in some degree the taxes
necessary to support the governments OF
their smaller sisters; but it is deemed un-
necessary to state the details, where the
general principle is so obvious.
A system liable to such objections can
, never be supposed to have been sanction
ed by the trainers of the constitution when
, they conferred on Congress the taxing
; power: and | feel persuaded that a ma.
ture examination of the subject will salts,
ty every one that there are insurmounta
= bic difficulties in the operation of any plan
5 which can be devised of collecting reve
S nue. for the purpose of distributing it
f Congress Is onl y authorised to levy taxes
e ''to pay the debts and provide for the com
S mon defence and General welfare of the
Z United States.' There is no such pro
4 vision as would authorize Congress to col
5 lect together the property of the country
O under the name of revenue, for the pur
pose OF dividing it equally or unequally
e among the states or the people. Indeed
IS 1t is not probable that such an idea eve
e occurred to the states when they adopte,
r. the constitution. But however this ma,
- be, the on Y safe rule for US in interpret
" ing the powers granted to the federal gov
= eminent, is to regard the absence of ex
II press authority to touch subject so in
t, portant and delicate as this is, as eouivs
lie lent to prohibition.
re Even if our powers were less doubtfr
~ ~ IN this respect, as the constitution no,
~ stands, there are considerations aforde
i, by recent experience, which would seer
at to make it our duty to avoid a resort
n such system.
re All will admit that the simplicity an
K economy of the state governments, mail
81 ly depend on the fact that the money BIZ
nc to be supplied to support them by the san
ne men, or their agents, who vote it away
. appropriations. Hence, when there al
he extravaganza and wasteful appropriation
is there must be corresponding increase
I'M taxes: and the people becoming awake,
ce ed, will necessarily scrutinize the chara
~ ter of measures which thus increase the
10. ID burdens. By the watchful eye of self.i
Is terest, the agents of the people in the sta
ar governments are depressed, and kept wit
i've in the limits ola just economy. But
the necessity of levying the taxes be tax,
of from those who make the appropriation
de- and thrown upon more distant and le
lis responsible set of public agents, who ha
Oh power to approach the people by an inc
the rect and stealthy taxation, there is reas,
o 70 to fear that prodigality will soon supt
vi nr sede those characteristics which have tn