The spirit of democracy. [volume] (Woodsfield, Ohio) 1844-1994, 1845-06-21
THE TAX LAW.

eimmortallty through Redeemer.1
y THE TAX LAW.
9To EDWARD ARcHBoLD, EsQ.:
q 1t is true that we have called upon you spy
sname" 10 come up to ssthe mark" and defend the
tax law of last winter and in SO doing We felt that
1--WE were but doing justice to our readers. lhey'
4 at least, have an interest in knowing if this law
goperates equally in different portions Of the State
\ 1--WE wish it distinctly understood that we stand
9forth as the advocate OF the tax payers OF Monroe
Hcounty. We have at no time taken ground for
the canal speculators but believe that by both the
Gold and new law they were and are favored lhe
z moor man with his two horses by which he earns
CHS bread, and his two COWS by which milk is fur
Ynlshed for his children, pays tax on valuation
g,of ninety six dollars,-the lender OF ninety SIX
ssdollars under the new law pays nothing! The
I man with two horses and three cows pays tax
3on valuation Of one hundred and four dollars
1.-The lender of one hundred and four dollars pays
s!tax on fifty t,cO! Is it just: Is it equitable =
4And if by the new law the taxable capital is in
screased above what it was under the old law, II
only proves that the amount upon which tax 'ci'i
Poe maid, should be double what it will be had the
sgold law been properly amended, We have not
said, neither will we say, that the new law will
S'bear hardly" upon the people Of the Miami and
Scioto valleys; but have said, and do say, that
siiit "bears hardly" on the citizens of eastern Ohio.
IWhy: The capital invested in the surplus pro-
3ducts of those valleys escapes taxation; but the
4captal invested in the surplus products OF eastern
gsOhio does not Is this just? Is il equitable?
q In answer to the oft repeated argument Of tavern
stock in the city of Cincinnati, we insert tho fol.
flowing article from the Ohio Statesman:
q "While the tax bill of last session was pending
gin the Senate, proposition was adopted, ievying
IA tax on all household furniture, gold and silver
&C.. belonging to any person or hrm
ssamoun,ing in the aggregate, to four hundred
edollars. In the House Of Representatives this
Namendment TO Keley's tax bill, so just in itself
fswas stricken out, and another substituted, decar
sng that the furniture OF every description used II
ga boarding house, tavern, or hotel, except the
s.kitchen and dining-room furniture necessary fol
s4he family, shall be taken and deemed as stock in
Istrade, and taxed accordingly. Under this amend
Ement, the scanty furniture of tavern or boarding
house is subject to taxation while that of the bank
er with his silver plate and rich carpets, his costly
9sideboards and luxurious sofas, his rich jewelry
6&c, though they may amount TO as many thou
sands as the furniture of the boarding house keep
Ger does 10 tens, yet it is exempt from taxation.
3Why this is so--what justice there is in it--and
eSwhat excuse can be given for such partial and
BuDjust legislation--are matters which the federal
4 smembers of the Legislature must answer.
a "With such facts as these staring them in the
Eface, the federal party claim that the law equazes
4 the taxes. Shame, where is thy blush!'
Well may the editor OF the Statesman say,
3"Shame, where is thy blush'" After all that we
had heard said Of the ''slver plate" and "costly
sideboards' OF the rich nabobs in the canal coun-
.ties, the amendment of the House was certainly
I an extraordinary one.
We have been taught that the payment of a
Sduty or tax upon foreign merchandise increases
sthe price to the consumer. The wings say it does
ss.not You, Mr.. Archbold, say that "we may
always suspect some fallacy i'll the argument which
pretends that direct taxes class indirect
staxes on another" If your position is true, then
all the arguments which teach US, that the consum-
pays the duty are false; and the entire democrat
Sic party in the last canvass, spent large portion
of their time in trying to establish as true fallacy
The idea of trying to connect this law with the
senormous expenditures on our internal improve
sments is certainly very singular one. We are
Sperfecty aware that our debt is enormous, and
sthat large portion of it was contracted with a
Eview to benefit the few and not the many; and
Eve are also aware that we have been tor long time
contributing to the payment of the interest of that
Edebt, without receiving any benefit; and we are
Therefore not willing to have burthens increas-
aed by such laws the present, in greater ratio
than those living in the vicinity of those improve
Rments.
We now come to the droper question. Well do
Z we know that the capital invested by the drover
of horses and cattle is not taxed provided the same
shave been listed for taxation for the year, the
fhorses at forty and the cattle at eight dollars a
fhead. We did not attempt to give the law any
sother construction. Butsuppose cattle and horses
iare purchased by drover of this State between
the first of January and March. (Which is about
the time of purchasing horses and fat catle,) and
ssent 10 market, is the drover taxed? Most un-
zdoubtedly. The very fact oi the proviso 10 the
Fourth section, exempting horses and cattle, which
shave been previously listed. proves most conclu-
fsivey that if they have not been previously listed
4 the capital invested is taxable, else why such a
3lengthy proviso, when two lines would have