The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1855-08-22

because Government protects you in the
possession Of your houses and land. Most
certainly then. according to your own prin-
eiple, if government should protect, and Sc
cure you, in the possession of note equal
in value to your houses and lands, you
should be willing to pay for that protec-
lion also. Does government do this?
In the case of the note on the man in
Pennsylvania, you say it is collectsble, on
ly BY the laws Of that state: that she is the
only protecting party. Now Pennsylvania
would assist you only in one case, and that
is in the collection Of it from the msker of
the note. But the principle value Of Bills
of exchange, promissory notes. DC depends
upon the freedom of their circulation
This note may pass through the hands of a
dozen persons in the State of Ohio. A doz-
en- suits may arise out Of it in our Courts.
II It were indorsed to you, and the indorser
after proper demand upon the maker and
notice to him, should refuse to pay, would
you not call upon our government. to pro-
tect and secure you in your rights? II any
one should wrongfully get possession of,
and withhold it from you, would not our
government, compel the wrong doer to de-
liver it back, and thus protect and secure
you in its possessions? In fact the machi.
merry of our government is called into opera
ton more frequently to protect the rights
of parties to Bills OF exchange and promis.
sory notes than for any other object. Full
" one half of the suits in Court arise on
this account And besides it is more diff
6culi for government to protect her citizens
in the possession of such wealth, than any
other. In the case of personal property,
such as horses, cattle, &C., if they are sto.
len from you, you may follow and take them
wherever you can find them; but in the case
of note indorsed in blank, OF payable to
bearer, if it is transferred to one in good
faith, and for valuable consideration, be-
fore you find it, you can not recover il al
all.
TIE principle that you proceed upon |
suppose to be, that bills and notes are not
property, but merely the evidence of prop
perry. But the question is, are they
valuble do they not constitute
wealth? You would tax one man, who
bad farm worth $5Ooo,oo, but another
who had the same amount in par bank pa
per you would not tax at all. Would not
the man with the bank paper need as much
protection and more, than the other? And
should he not according to your own princi
Piles pay for that protection? If men could
escape bearing their eqa! share toward sup
porting the government that protects ttem
in this manner, how many miserly rascals
would Immediately change the form of theil
wealth, and throw the burden altogether or
the hot est portion Of the coG:munity?-
eff the real valuation of the property o
the State be the basis Of taxation, and every
man should be taxed only upon what he i
worth, then property and credit should frs
he diminished by the amount OF the inlivd
uals indebtedness; and taxes levied on tn,
remainder. The debter may be regarded
as only the steward of the creditor, as onll
holding another mans property. Suppos'
for example, am indebted TO my neighbo
in the sum of $1,000, while my whole es
tate would amount to $4,000 Now, how
much am really worth? Evidently only
$1,000. The remaining $1,000 belongs t.
my neighbor. And in my note be hold
his title to the property in my possession
Hence, Tin this case, should be taxed upor
$1,000, and he upon the other thousand
Thus all the property Of the State would be
brought upon the duplicate. and no more
whereas, upon any other system, some
property must necessarily be taxed two
three or more times, according to circum.
stances"
| From what has already been said the an
swer to this will be obvious. The govern
ment finds you in possession Of 1000 dolls
worth ofproperty, and protects and secures
you in that possession, and therefore you
should pay tax for that amount. If it pro.
tect you only in $1,000, AMI let the rogues
carry off the other thousand, you nigh
complain with reason for its taxin g you fol
$4,000 when it only protected you in the
possession of $1,000.
He who holds the note on you is protect
ed in its possession; it is valuable: he may
transfer it any moment for the cash: Or il
you refuse to pay him, he immediately calls
upon government to compel you; therefore,
he should pay for that protection. The
case which you put ofthe horse is answered
in the same manner.
If, as you admit, the right ofgovernment
to tax is co-extensiye with the protection af
corded, and if that protection extends tc
m )re than the mere tangible property o.
the State, then it follows that government
has right to tax more than the tangible pro-
perty of the State. think I have shown
that its protection does SO extend, and if SO
the conclusion is evident The argument
may be stated sy'logistieal!y. thus:
4 /. Government has right to tax every,
thing to which its protection extends.
g. Its protection extends to bank note 5
bills Of exchange and promissory notes.