Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1836-12-15

q country, Wnlch are always productive of s.
cuatlon, and detrimental TO the interests
: regular trade. Argument can scarcely
= necessary to show that measure of Il
J. character ought not to receive further leg
1 latIve encouragement
e BY examining the practical operation
the ratio for distribution, adopted in the
; poSite bill of the last session, we shall di
cover features, that appear equally objection
; BILE. Let 1t be assumed. for the sake Of arg
ment that the surplus moneys to be deposi
ed with the States have been collected. an
belong to them, in the ratio of their feder;
representative population-an assumptio
founded upon the fact that any deticiencie
In our future revenue from imposts and pub
lIc lands, must be made up by direct taxes
collected from the States in that ratio
IS proposed to distribute the surplus, say
$50, 100000, not according to the ratio in
which 1t has been collected and belongs TO
the people of the States, but in that of their
votes in the colleges of electors of President
and Vice President The effect of a disr-
button upon that ratio is shown by the annex
ed table, marked a
BY an examination of that table, it will be
perceived that in the distribution of u surplus
OF S3O,000,000, upon that basis, there is n
great departure from the principle which re-
CARDS representation as the true measure of
taxation and it will be found that the ten
dency of that departure will be to increase
whatever inequalities have been supposed 10
attend the operation of our federal system i'm
respect to its bearings upon the different in
terests of the Union. In making the basis
OF representation the basis of taxation. the
trainers of the constitution intended to equal |
Ize the burdens which are necessary to sun |
port the Government; and the adoption of
that ratio, while II accomplished this object
was also the means of adjusting other great
topics arising out Of the conflicting views
respecting the political equality of the vari-
Gus members of the confederacv. Whatever
therefore disturbs the liberal spirit of the
which established a rule of taxa
ton so just and equitable and which expert |
ence has proved to be so well adapted to the |
genius and habits Of our people, should be |
received with the greatest caution and distrust.
bare inspection in the annexed table, of |
the differences produced by the ratio used in
the deposlte act, compared with The results of |
a distribution according 10 the ratio of direct |
taxation, must satisfy every unprecedented |
mind, that the former ratio contravenes the
spirit of the constitution, and produces de-
gree of injustice in the operation of the Fed
eral Government which would be fatal TO the
hope of perpetuating it, BY the ratio of d. /
rect taxation, for example, the State of Del .
aware, in the collection Of $50 600. 900 Of
revenue, would pay into the Treasury $685.
7l6: and in a distribution of 100000. 600
she would receive back from the Government,
according to the ratio of the deposite bill, |
the sum of $500, 1872 : and similar results
would follow the comparison between the |
small and the large States throughout the !
Union; thus realizing to the small States an |
advantage which would be doubtless as un-
acceptable to them as a motive for incorpora
mig 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 provis-
ION OF the constitution which declares that
- all duties, mposts and excuses" shall ." be
uniform throughout the United States" to
make the burdens of taxation fall equally
upon the people in whatever State of the I'm
ion they may reside. Bat what would be
the value of such an uniform rule if the mo.
neys raised by it could be Immediately re-
turned by different one which will give to
the people of some States much more, and 10
those OF others much less, than their fair
Were the Federal Govern
ment to exempt, IN express terms, the imports,
pFOuuctS, ana manufactures OF some portions
of the country from all duties, while it i'm
posed heavy ones on others, the injustice
could not be greater. II would be easy to
show how by the operation of such prin-
cipie, the large States of the Union would not
only have to contribute their Just share to-
wards the support of the Federal Govern. |
ment, but also have to bear in some degree /
the taxes necessary to support the Govern /
nents Of their smaller sisters; but it is deem
cd Unnecessary to state the details where the
general principle is so obvious
A system liable to such objections can ne
yer be supposed to have been sanctioned
by the trainers of the constitution, when
they conferred on Congress taxing power
and feel persuaded that mature examina-
ton Of the subject will satisfy every one that
there are insurmountabIe difficulties in the
operation Of any plan which can be devised
of collecting revenue FOR the purpose of dis
tributing it. Congress is only authorised to
levy taxes TO pay the debts and procjde for,
the common defence Gnd general 1eifore of
The United States" There is no such pro
visions as would authorize Congress to col
lect together the property of the country, un-
der the name of revenue for the purpose of
dividing it equally or unequally among the
States or the people. Indeed, it is not pro-
bable that such an idea ever occurred to the
States when they adopted the constitution
But, however this may be, the only safe rule
for It's in interpreting the powers granted to
Al i 4