Staunton spectator, and general advertiser. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 183?-1849, 1842-04-21

the necessity thereby created for addition
taxation And do not the people Of the star
bear the burthenI What becomes Of die "a
LECTION against distribution SO loudly mat
both by the gentleman from Louisa, and Il
gentleman from Accomack, (Mr. BAYLY
founded on the supposed burtheusome opers
lion of the tariff? When it was necessary {,
make The tariff odious, no form of taxato
was so oppressive; direct taxes, excuses, an
all the resorts of crowned heads, and despoti
| governments were cheap and mild IN compar
lson with The system of duties upon imports
but when it served turn to make distribution
unpopular, II is all at once form of taxation
so mild in its operation that the tax is drawn
| from the people without their knowledge of it.
! pray that gentlemen will be consistent, and il
the system OF revenue derived from imports be
obnoxious TO the objections urged against il,
| let the cause Of distribution have the benefit Of
it.
But the treasury Of the United States is
empty, aud distribution is said TO be an absurd
financial measure on that account. IT tfie fed
erol treasury is empty, those of the states are
not full; both need replenshng; and since
The means OF replenishment are TO be drawn iii
either case from the same people, what mat
ters Il (othcr considerations apart) into which
treasury the land fund goes? lfinto the feder.
al treasury, we shall have to contribute less to
the federal government finto the state trea-
surIes, we shall have TO contribute less 10 the
states In their zeal to advance the cause
which they espouse, gentlemen seem to forget
that the people of the states have any interest
IN. or concern with, the federal government:
that congress and the state legislatures are bur
agencies of the same people, endowed with
special trusts, it is true, but exercising them
Tor the same end.
To congress we have confded our more
general concerns, and it is clothed with the
exclusive power of raising revenue by duties
upon importations to the state legislature we
have confded our particular and municipal con-
Germs, and for means of revenue they are linn :
ted to direct taxation. Between the two
nodes OF revenue we cannot hesitate to de-
'pie WHICH is preferable. But here is fund,
leiiker derived from direct taxes nor from du-
les, and suprosing it TO be applicable to the
wants of either government, the question aris-
IS, to which shall we devote it3 Devote it to
he states. and an increase of the duties upon
orcign nnporations will be necessary, and
hen will be revived, we are told, the old exr
'loGed american System" Now, to this I
nswer, that the policy of distribution contem-
'lates only a tariff for revenue-nothng more;
nd if, in the arrangement of duties for the
purpose of revenue, incidental protection be
iven to domestic industry if .4n1cr7can la
our can be fostered at the expense Of foreign,
Who is there that feels the pulsations of true
American heart in his bosom, will object9
Direct taxes fall unequally on small property
folders, most upequally on agricultural class
IS. Their lands and personal estate lie open
o the taXlaycr and taX-gatherer, whilst the
arge capitalists, the merchants, manufacturers
md moneyed classes, remain untouched.
Who they are %Rc pay DE tax o 81 aA aa
laves, and horses, and who pay the imposts
IN West India rum, French brandy, foreign
vines, imperial teas and broad cloths, silks and
aiins If tariff casts the burden oftakation
;pon the rich, will you reject it because it
,ives life and vigor to our manufactures in pre-
erence TO those of tereign nations? Will YOU
eiect it because it enrIches those who spin
md weave your coitons s. woollens in Lowell,
end Petersburg, rather than the
primers and weavers ofLondon and Manches-
err? VIII you reject 1t because it furnishes
mouths to consume your bread stpfls, your
meats, and a market for your wool And
will you rejec: it because it lessons that drain
which carries to Europe the precious metals,
undermining our banks, corrupting our curren-
y, and enriching brokers and usuers? 81,
We have, it is true. two governments, but
We are one people. The people of the states
nave, in some form, to furnish the means of
'arrying on both governments. What is the
pest mote of providing the means? By inn
post duties or direct taxes? And is this an
unsettled question of American policy Are
We now, in 1912, after the experience of all
nations, and our own practice for
more than fifty years, called on to maintain
BY argument the preference of imposts over
axes OH lands, slaves and horses, and odious
excise laws?
In the days Of Jefferson. whom gentlemen
so often quote, an impost was looked upon
rather as benefit than burhen. In his
message to congress, December Cd, 1906, an
ticipating surplus of revenue to be derived
from imposts beyond the wants of the govern
mcnt, he says: ':The question, therefore, now
comes forward to what other objects shall
these surplusses be appropriately and the whole
surplus Of the impost after the entire discharge
of the public debt, ard during those intervals
when the purposes Of war shall not call for
them? Shall we suppress the impost and give
that advantage to foreign over domestic manu-
features? On few articles of more general
and necessary use, the suppression in due sea-
son will doubtless be right. But the great
mass Of the articles on which impos, is paid
are foreign luxurjcs, purchased by those only
who are rich enough to afford themselves the
use of them. Their patriotism would certainly
T,re lie and opplcnfiDu N fhe