The weekly Portage sentinel. [volume] (Ravenna, Ohio) 1854-1861, 1855-09-29
TaTnfion--True DnsIs.

Aot s-aS1 ~ eohA N~~t-~~ N~~~rsS-
% bring the present tar law into disgraes
By skulking the true question, and Prating
about Ii taxing ius on more than We are
worth, and theSame property three times ov-
or. Il might be said, that in the muftifariOus-
ness ofour pursuits and the variety Oichanhels
through which property passes In the trans
ton of the many different business opera
tions of the State, it would be impossible to
reach every individual necessity, and no
doubt the best regulated law might work
hardship on some, and favor another por-
ton.
We must therefore, as candid men, exam
inc. the present law, and before we think Of
its repeal, ascertain how and where it could
be improved. It must be remembered, as a
primary principle, IN regulating the tax ques-
ton, that property is the basis of taxation,
that the policy Of repdblicanism is to tax
the property in whose ever hands it may be
Vithout regard to that mans sOluency or in
eOlpsncy. Taxes are due to the State for
the projection of property, and we do not
stop to ask the possessor of property who
asks redress at the hands Of the State
for trespass or larceny on that prop
ery, whether it is paid for or noH That
property which pays no tax to the support
of the State, should receive no protection
from the State.
Hence we see the fallacy OF the spccious
doctrines that would "tax man on just
what he is WORTH" for, If he is aoorth nothing
he pays no taEes, no matter how much prop
erty he may have in his hands for which he
asks protection Of the State. And ii it be
true, that the republican doctrine is, that
taxation and protection are reciprocal duties
mutually existing between the Government
and the people, then, that mau who is SO
unfortunate as 10 be in debt for his property
would not be entitled to any protection at
all, because he paid no faces, not being
worth anything. @
If this doctrine be true, then our silk
stockined gentry, who stand smirking be-
hind their gilded counters, and roll, in lux.
ury and ease, while the farmers are tlling
the soil to earn their bre4d, these arstocrat-
ic gentleman, deduct their indebtedness
from their property, and have nothing left,
their debts are in New York and Boston,
they reap luxuriant harvest from their
stock in trude, enjoy the good things Of this
world in superlative degree, are amply pro-
tected by the laws of the State. II a poor
peddler ventures among US he is hunted
down and $50 and costs, imposed as pen
atty for daring to sell cheaper than they, and
the farmers who own farms, and have them
paid for, may pay all the taxes to support u
State Government to these monopoles.
Again, they say, property is taxed too Of
ten,-two or three times, they say. A sells
his house to D and takes his note for $loo,
B sells the house to C, and takes his note
for 800. The assessor puts upon the tax
list the house in C's hands the note in BIS,
and the note of B, in AS hands, making
$500 Of taxable property out of house
worth 500. This the old stereotyped OBJ
iection to the present tax law, the out side
deformity which is presented by our oppo.
nents who dare not openly avow their sym.
psthy for bank exemption. Our snswer is,
first
The law in this respect is equal, bearing
alike on all, Second, The Law taxes property
in whose hands it is found. II the assessor
fndsin the hands of A, BIS note, and A,
swears it is worth 800, or $50. it is taxed
at 800, or 30, or whatever it Is worth. II
the note is worth as much qs the horse he
is no poorer than before he parted with the
horse, and ought to be taxed just as much,
If he has sold him for a worthless note, the
law only taxes him at sohat it is north. The
same argument applies to B, who has C's
note, and to c, when he sells him to D, for
DIS note, and so on, none OF them any poor
er than before the sale.-Flaa.