Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1857-08-05
The Tax on Merchants Capital.

The Tax on Merchants Capital.
We invite the attention of our readers, and espe.
cially of merchants to the following correspondence
between Messrs. Rodman and Donnel on behalf of
the merchants of Washington, and the Treasurer of
the State.
The error into which many of the merchants have
fallen is that of supposng that the tax of onehrd,
one and five per cent. in the specified in Sec
ton "a of the law. imposed on the goods
wares and merchandise" themselves, ard not on the
capital employed in purchasing them The tao IS on
the capital and not on the goods. Nor is any dis
elimination made between "goodS, wares ard mer-
chandize" purchased ont of and within the State
The act, it seems to us is clear; and we think the
Treasurer in his reply to Messrs. Rodman and Don
nell has given it its true construction. In some in
Stances it is true the tax is quite heavy and there
may be force as the Treasurer observes in what is
said to the policy of the law; yet that cannot af
feet the construction which the law itself should pro-
perly bear. After all, however, the burden will fall
the consumer for it is not to be supposed that
the mer chant will himself incur the loss in profits
which must ensue.
1t is highly important that every revenue law
should be plain and clear and framed as to oper-
ate as equally as possible upon all. The present law
is the result of reflection Of anxious consideration,
and of no nconsiderable financial skill; yet, it must
be confessed it is in respects obscure, and does
not operate equally upon all interests and subjects.
Some of the defects of the present law, and in
deed the most striking of them, to be attributed,
not to the Finance Committee, but to amendments
made to the bill during its progress through the two
Houses. 1t so happened also, at both the sessions
or nd hiatt tbo
hindered and delayed in its abors by the want of
documentary information in relation to the financial
condition of the State; and owing mainly to this,
the revenue bills reported at too late periods in
the sessions permit that full and careful consider
alton and analysis which their Importance demanded
The documentary information referred to- is contain
ed for the most part in the Treasurer's and Comp
troer's Reports; and these, We think, should be
dered to be printed in advance we'll for the year
Immediately preceding as for the former year, and
laid on the tables of members on the first day of
the session.
But there never was, and there never will be,
perfect revenue law; and the more specifics any law
of this kind may contain the more imperfect it will
be. The true system is the ad uazorem systen-that
is, taxation according to value. This system was
recommended by Gov Reid in his annual message
to the General Assembly in 1852; and in our opin-
ion the day is not very distant when it will be adopt
ed in this State. Let the people think of it. But
we have already detained our readers longer than
we intended from the correspondence above refer
red to:
WASHINGTON, N. c., July 5th, 1857.
DEAR SIR: We have been asked by number of
merchants in this place to give opinion on the
construction of the oath Sect of the revised act ch
A. 1f c,o1 J..
ing So because literal Interpretation would be so
Injurious that we cannot believe the Legislature
err intended such result We have suggested,
therefore, that you should be consulted; that if
the effect be Injurious should at least be uniform
throughout the State and the pressure borne equal
ly by all. Please inform officially of the views of
the government on the following cases: &C.
l. LII A sells turpentne cotton of his own pro-
ducton in this State to B, and sells to C. who ships
and sells 1t abroad are both B and bound to pay
the tax OF OF per cent? on the turpentine cot
ton? And is this SO, regardless of how many times
it may be sold before expectation?
2. If A, jobber, imports goods from n. York and
sells to B, who retas to the consumer, are both A
and bound to pay the tax of ! of per cent?
You will perceive that these cases substantially
the same; the first relating TO goods produced in the
State, and exported for consumption; and the Sec
ond, to those imported for consumption.
If the first is answered afirmatively, it will go
very far to break up the internal trade in our own
staples If the second is answered in like manner,
twill break up the jobbing business, large one in
Our eastern, and probably the interior towns, and
compel every retailer to buy his goods abroad. Fur
;her if we had any foreign import trade, such legis
iaion would seem aimed directly to break it up, as
ports Of all other States would have a preference
over our own to the amount of the tax.
%. II sells goods imported from N. Y. and takes
arpent'ne or cotton in payment, is he as purcha-
er oi both his N. Y. goods and of the turpentine,
'ouhd TO pay tax on the tUo sums?
tba nls is answered afrmatively, it will break up
Hence ""~ p'oo'oe 'nnn''e 'nconVe'
e. DO sections "a, 2e and 27 impose amy tax on