Republican vindicator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1857, 1857-05-09

only changes the form of taxation. This
effect of distribution was admitted by Mr.
Clay himself IN 1871, when he remarked in
the Senate that ''he would say again, and
gentlemen might make the most of it, that
this question of distribution is neither more
nor less than question of taxation to the
amount of the fund distributed. 1t is mere
ly change from direct to indirect taxa
ton" Yes, said Mr.. s., merely change
from direct taxation, which you all can I'M
derstand--since you know aghen you pay to
the Sheriff, and hoao much you pay, and
upon what you pay--to indirect taxation,
which, being laid upon what you consume,
enters like the frogs of Egypt, Unto your
houses, and into your bed-chambers. and
upon your beds, and into the houses of your
servants, and into your ovens, and into your
kneading troughs," and shall proceed to
show you, by an illustration which shall
borrow, that this necessity for indirect tax
alton occasioned by the withdrawal Of money
from the Federal Treasury for distribution,
occasions an immense loss to the people.
You are aware, said Mr.. S., that the du-
ties imposed upon importations are ultimate
ly paid by the consumer. The duties are
first paid by the importing merchant, and
constitute part of the cost to him of the
goods. When the importer sells to the retail
err, the duties paid by the importer are in
cluded in the price charged by him to the
retailer, and the retailer in selling to the
farmer, charges the farmer with the price
which the retailer has paid the importer
Of which the duties are part. And upon the
sale of the importer to the retailer, and of
the retailer to the farmer, there is q profit
charged as well upon the duties, which have
become part of the cost of the goods, as
upon the original value of the goods. Sup
pose $1,000 worth of cotton cloth imported,
upon which a duty of 20 per cent has been
laid by the government. The case would
stand thus:
Original cost to importer of cotton
cloth, $1,000
Tariff duty 20 per cent on $1,000,
and paid by importer to the gov
ernment ~ 2UO
Cost of goods to importer after duty
paid, $1,000
Interest at 6 per cent on $1,000,
supposing the goods not to reach
the farmer for year, and which
enters into cost to farmer, -
Joint profit of importer and retail
or on the $1,000 at 33 l-3 pr ct, 400
Cost to the farmer Of the cotton
cloth, S1672
Now, since the 5000, the duty laid by
the government on $1,000 worth of cloth,
enters into the price (S1200) paid by the
importer for the cloth, aud constitutes one
sixth part of that price; and since the intc-
rest and profits of the importer and retail
merchant are charged upon that 5000, after
it has entered into the price of the cloth,
you have only, in order to ascertain what is
paid by the farmer solely on account Of the
duty, to find the one-sixth of $1672, the
whole cost of the cloth to the farmer That
ono-sixth we ascertain to be S2I8 66a, and
is thus divided:
Nett proceeds Of the duty of 5000, which
goes into the Treasury, $3.50
Expense of collecting $780,
which goes to the revenue
officers and is about 10 per
cent, 20
- 5000
Interest and profit of importer
and retail merchant, being
the residue of the $278.66s IS Cog
s275 66s
1t thus appears, that while $3.50 goes
into the Treasury, the farmer has to pay
$27S.66s, of which 500 66s (made up of
the $40 paid to revenue officers and S79
66S paid to importer and retail merchant)
is dead loss to him growing out of the i'm
position Of the duty by the government. -
Now it is easy to calculate. if the farmer is
at dead loss of $98 cog in the process of
getting $3.50 into the Treasury, how great
the loss would be in getting 50, 600, 900 in
to the Treasury, in lieu of that sum taken
for distribution. 1t appears, that for every
dollar taken for distribution, the farmer
would have to pay upwards of 81 so to get
it back, fact which / commend to your
careful consideration.
| now advance, said Mr.. S., to another
and even greater objection to the policy of
distribution which is, that it will be pro-
ductive of great injustice in the unequal bur-
dcns of taxation which it will impose as be-
tween the wealthy property holders, and the
small proprietors and laboring classes of the
State. seek at no time to array the poor
against the rich, Or to arouse the pride of
the rich against the poor. desire only that
the benefits and burdens of the government
shall 60 hand in hand, & be apportioned upon
some principles of equality and l shall, at
all times, raise my voice against any policy
which shall, like this of distribution, reverse
the relationship which should exist between
them Those who clamor for distribution
point you to the indebtedness of the State,
and urge that as reason why you should at
this time. particularly demand share of
the proceeds of the public lands, and seek,
in this way, relief from the weight of State
taxes l have already shown you that dis
trbution will not avail you for this purpose
because, for every dollar distracted through
its agency from the Federal Treasury, you
will have to pay at least dollar and a half
to get it back But let me inquire of you
how this indebtedness of the State has been
created? Has it not been in the construc-
ton of the numerous works of internal i'm
provement, which the State has recently un-
dertaken Now, while all classes have been
directly or indirectly benefited by those i'm
provements, let me ask who have derived the
chief advantage from them Has it not