The western Democrat. [volume] (Charlotte, N.C.) 1852-1870, 1857-08-04
REVENUE LAW.
The following correspondence explains
itself: -

WASHINGTON, n. c., July 5th, 1857.
DEAR SIR We have been asked by
number Of Merchants in this place, to give
our opinion on the construction of the Oath
Sect. of the Revised Act, CHI. 81, of the acts
of 1856. We feel a difficulty in doing so,
because literal interpretation would be so
injurious, that we cannot believe the Legis-
lature ever intended such a result. We
have suggested therefore that you should
be consulted; so that if the effect be inju-
rious, it should at least be uniform through
out the State, and the pressure borne equal
Iy by all. Please inform us officially Of the
views of the Government on the following
cases.
1. If A sells Turpt. or Cotton of his own
production in this State to B, and B sells to
C. who ships and sells it abroad-are both Is
and C bound to pay the tag of OF per
cent. on the Turpt. or Cotton! And is this
so, regardless of how many times it may be
sold before expectation ?
2. If A, iobber, imports goods from New
York, and sells to B, who retails to the CON
sumner, are both 4 and B bound to pay the
tax of of per cent.
You will perceive that these cases are
substantially the same; the first relating to
goods produced in the State, and exported
for consumption; and the second, to those
imported for consumption.
If the first is answered affirmatively, it
will go very far to break up the internal
trade in our own staples. If the second is
answered in like manner, it will break up
the iobbing business, large one in our Eas-
tern, Rnd probably interior Towns, and COM
pei every retailer to buy his goods abroad.
Further, if we had any foreign import trade,
such Legislation would seem aimed directly
to break it up, as ports of all other States
would have a preference over opr own to
the amount of the tax.
3. If A sells goods imported from New
York, and takes Turpt. or Cotton in pay
ment, is he, as a purchaser of his New York
goods and of the Turpt., bound to pay tax
on the taOo sums?
If this is answered afirmatively, it will
break up the barter business and produce
infinite inconvenience,
4. Do sections "a, &c and % impose eng
tax on the dealings of MERCHANTS prior to
1st July, 1857! Are not the taxes then
payable by them, anticipatory of their bust
ness from 1st July 1857 to 1st July 1853,
and applicable only to their dealings in that
interval!
5. Does sect. 81 apply only to those who
have not been dealing in merchandise before
I'd July, 1857, or also to those, who were so
dealing before LIST July, 1857, and "open
store after 1st July, 1857, by continuing
their dealing!
IF Sec. "a imposes tax, not on property,
but on conduct Ito wit purchases prior TO
ats passage, it would seem to be an er post
facto law, and more in the nature of con-
fscation than a revenue act; and in its con-
orrUuUrUnu1IIy very nuHnLTu1- Uur CIItIIUs
desire to discharge all their duties as good
citizens, however onerous; they are satisf-
ed that the defects of the law do not arise
from any intention in the Legislature to
Cypress, but from want of consideration
merely; the greatest evil of an obscure fax
ing law-and the remark applies equally to
one whose security makes its construction
doubtful-is, that it never operates equally;
the most conscientious bear the burden,
those less so evade it. They desire to know,
therefore. WHAT'S the construction which
the government officers intend to enforce,
80 that they may act accordingly. The i'm
portance of the subject warrants Us in re-
questing an early reply.
Respectfully Yours,
w. B. RODMAN,
r. S. DONNELL.