The Charlotte journal. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1835-1851, 1842-09-29
t NUMBER 4.
From the Ncr Iork Weeyv Tribune.

! DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXATION,
There IS no use in demolishing PROPOSE.
lion for which nobody is responsible. Such
IS the case with the present Loco Foco de.
monstrntous or feeders in favor Of an aboll.
tion Of all Custom House Duties aud the
support of the Federal Government by d..
rect Taxation. Suppose we show its utter
absurdty aud suicidal policy, " ha, have we
gained by il! Who stands behind II That
moment the adversary tacks, and excIaims,
90, We are not in favor of Direct Taxes,
unless as an alternative; we are 10 favor Of
Rerenue Tariff or Jadicious Tariff
or perhaps Incidental Protection or some
other. artlul dodge, and thus we have only
thrown away our powder. But if Loco Fo.
coi'm will ever distinctly take lis s,aud on
. that TO which its doctrines and its argu.
ments distinctly teDd-nsmely, no Customs
and all Revenue 10 be raised by Direct
Taxes, We promise it as thorough Kidding
as heart can desire.
But we received, some weeks since, from
an anonymous inquirer obviously plain,
sincere man, who works for bis living.
some queries on the relative advantages Of
the Two Revenue systems, aud on the Jus.
ilce aud policy OF Indirect Taxes, deserving
respectful reply, which we shall proceed
to give. We have misald the queries, but
recolIect their drift, and shall reply accor-
dlugiy.
l. The advocates Of Direct Taxes con.
tend that BY Tariff People are taxed in.
stead Of Property, and that poor man
pays as much towards the support of the
Government as rich one. Let US see.
We have here first a ,acit assumption tina.
all taxes should be laid on Property or ra,h.
er 90 individuals IN proportion 10 the amount
Of their Property This is commonly I'D.
mtted, bu; is II sound " hat is Govern.
ment! Is II not mere association of indi.
yIduas or families to secure certain benefits
or ward of unprecedented evils as can only
be done IN their united capacity? Is it not
clear that each should pay, not in proper.
ton to the Property he may chance TO pos.
SEES, but To- The benefits conferred on him Jg
that especial organisation If Jones and
| make up fishing party, or cunning ex.
cursl0n, or pleasure trip to the Saut ST.
Marie, ls It not evident tina, we should share
the cost equally, or according 10 the number
we respectively embark 10 the expedition
without regard to the amount either Of us
may be worth If We charter vessel 10.
ge,her and despatch her on a commercial
enterprise, do we no, pay according 10 cur
respective ventures or freight, with no re.
gard 10 our relative property elsewhere
Now the State Governments, being institu.
ted manly to protect Property as well as
Persons from domestic outrage ard wrong,
may property, (but not exclusively tax
property for their support; but the FEEDER.
al Government, being instituted mainly 10
guard and protect Us in our external rea.
lions, should levy its taxes with reference
to that fact. In other words, the due Pro.
lection and regulation OF foreign commerce
and lis incidents is the main business of that
Government, and i, is bot right that Com.
merco should contribute largely 10 its sup.
port. Aud # oue man requires and con.
somes more foreign goods than another, no
u that respect derives greater benefit from
the Fedora! Government in the shield which
il holds over Commerce, and should be tax.
ed accordingly.
And now 10 the case in hand: Does n
poor man pay as much as a rich one toward
the support OF the Federal Government IN.
der Tariff Of any kind Does hod car.
Tler or carmsn consume an equal quaint.
ty oi foreign products with banker, q cap
uas', or a Priuce|Y merchant Such is the
49,. -
the plainesi and most notorious facts? Is
not well known general rule that every
man lives according 10 his income-some,
indeed, above and some below it, but still
with a general and average reference there.
TO? The man whose income is S., 900
year viii very rarely live on $500; tho
man who can earn but $500, how often does
be spend S2,0002 There are instances,
Of course, of perrerseness in this as IN all
things, but they do not !nvalidate the obyi.
1us rule.
Now as very general rule, that largo
portion of our population who live by their
Labor alone consume mainly tie direct
fruits of that labor, on which no duty is
eved or paid. 4 farmer who raises $500
worth of produce per year, and consumes
half of il at home will not buy $50 worth
Of Foreign produce in ysar. Do tho
other hand, a man whose expenses are 49,.
600 per annum will necessarily pay more
than half of il for Silks. Laces, Cloths,
Wines, Liquors, Teas. Spices, Cutlery.
Porcelain, &c, which come from abroad,
Luyury Is almost always looking abroad
for !, aduleences. Frugality can mainly
SATISFY ,s want very well al home. rich
mao who purchases no more foreign goods
than paor one is an anomaly of very infre
oueat occurrence. We do not believe the
vii of man could devise mode of taxation
so Just and equal as that by Duties on In.
ports.
But consider what is the effect of Import
Duties on the rerard of Labor. We can
not Of course 90 fully into this subject here,
for il would require volume, and we do