The miners' express. (Dubuque, Iowa) 1849-1854, 1850-06-05
A,valorem vs.. Specific Taxation.

lject than that at issue, and to that we mean to
devote our attention, notwithstanding the beg
off of the Tribune, "that we are not going to be
drawn into an endless wrange about it for any
body's convenience or amusement Why, Mr.
Tribune, you made voluntary display of your
gladiatorial prowess, for whose ssconvenience,"
we cannot vouch, but certainly for our "amuse-
ment;" and now, that we have just tasted of the
pleasure it would be uncourteous to refuse what
is so very amusing to us, though at the risk of a
little tn."convenience,' to you. For amusement
sake, don't refuse us so great favor, Mr.. Tri
bune; you may feel exhausted by the effort, but
it will certainly do you no harm.
After giving to its readers portion of our
marks, or to use its own expression, call of our
neighbours article that is worth anything the
Tribune proceeds to assert, Elm the first place,
it is not true, that in specific dutying no regard
is had to quality" In reply to this assertion,
all we have to say, is, that if this be true, then
the question is decided-and decided in favor
of our proposition-for the moment you make
quality the basis of taxation, you do that which
we contend should be done, viz: tax according
to value; for how can we estimate value otherwise
than by quality, weight, and measure? This is
a yielding Of the whole question, and we must
confess that we feel sadly disappointed at the de-
fence Of the Tribune for its favorite system
We did expect little more "amusement,' but
convenience" that naughty interloper, has
spoiled our sport.
| After giving up the question in its first para
graph, the Tribune begs it back again, when he
says, that cloth worth SO or $50 yard, will be
put down under the advalorem system at 81 90.
Why, here is the plainest contradiction of terms,
the plaincst contradiction of figures, of value,
and of facts In terms, because ST. is neither as
valuable as So or So; in figures for the same
reason, in value and facts, the same as before.
All is contradiction, and it would have been
more credtable for the Tribune to stop at once
when it felt that it was not going into end
less wrangle about this matter, than to have tried
to make any one believe that 81 advalorem was
equivalent to 2 or 3. Why, man, that beats BIO
logy by a great deal. You can make more mo-
ney by that operation than setting type. Just
convince yourself that one dollar yard cloth is
as good as three dollar CLOTH and you will be
truly great man; but if you succeed in convn-
cling the public that they ought 10 pay Just as
much for the cheapest as for the dearest, you
will be far greater man yet, and truly dcserv-
ing the name of Wing
This, Mr.. Tribune, is the question at Issue,
and you shall not escapeit. We charge LIST, that
the Wing, or specific tariff system, taxes the poor
man more in proportion to the value of what he
| "a ] A. l. -xl-.-
objectionable You have not denied it.
). 3D. We assert that the democratic or advalo-
rem system taxes according to value, and is
therefore equal, just, and proper. You have not
contradicted it.
Sd. We hold that it is no defence of the spe-
cifc system to affirm that the real value of m-
ported goods cannot be precisely ascertained,
nor is that reason for condemning the advalo-
rem system. We based this assertion upon the
reasoning of your first article, and you have not
disputed it.
4th. five assume specific basis of taxation
on our foreign imports, we may, with much
f propriety, the specific basis for domestic
taxation; for the same cause exists why it should
be done in one as much as in the other. This
hypothesis you do not dispute.
5th. We said that according to the Wing sys-
tenn, cloth, without regard to quality, would be
taxed at so much per yard; while, by the Demo-
Cratic system, it would be taxed according to ral-
uc
This proposition contains the question in dis
pute, and you do not meet it, but admit part
and beg to be let off with the rest
We might multiply propositions of fact from
our article, did we choose so to do; but enough
has been presented for purpose, and the
convenience of our ncighbor. This question
was first raised by the Tribune, and now that it
has been met, instead of defending its own prin-
ciples on its own ground, the Tribune becomes
both 4 censor and moralist, assuming judicial
position in both, and leaving the political arena
which it has hitherto chosen for the display of its
feats of valor it wallows in the filth of billings
gate to liken us to "demagogues and tricksters. +,
Beware, Mr. Tribune, how you raise new issues.
That is the last shift of "demagogue and trick.
ster.'
The Tribune gives the following illustration
in calculation of its favorite system, and in en-
deavoring to cast obscurity ours:
awe will venture to say, that our conscientious
neighbor of the Express does in his daily bust
r ness the very thing he rails so bitterly and I'M
justly against Wings for doing when they lay
tariffs. For instance, poor man comes along
) and says, I have lost my COW, and want to get
her back, that may have milk for my children,
or, have become involved in debt, and must
sell my farm to pay it;-or, am out of business
and wish to get few rich mems coats to clean
and mend;-wel, our neighbor charges him
81 so or $500 to repeat this fact to his readers
two or three times, in dozen lines of his type.
This is at the rate of $500 to $500 for column
La year. Next comes rich man, who buys and
sells goods by wholesale, or compounds pills by
: ton, and he says l want to make dash, and
draw in all the world to buy of me, and increase
my stores;-what will you charge me for a CO.
lumn for a year? Forty dollars, replies our
equity loving neighbor. And for forty dollars a
year, he repeats to his readers all the trash that
pill-vender's ingenuity can crowd into the al
lotted space
I Here our neigbor leaves the question at issue
to take care of itself; and by desperate effort,
and by Sinking subterfuge, attempts to make