Weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1858-1865, 1859-05-25
For the Standard.
AID VALOREM TAXATION,

Az NaLOhEM liiAhIlOA
MEssRs EDlToRs send you the following, with
request that you give it place in the columns
of your useful paper and would be glad to see it cop
led in all the papers of the State not for the literary
merit possesses for pretends to none but because
it treats of subject in which all tax payers in
terested. A subject the aim and purpose of which
is fundamental change in the revenue laws of the
State; introduced in both houses of the last Gener
al Assembly, and voted down; Scotched, but not
killed / mean system of ad ralorem taxation.
1t is of the evils inseparable from representa-
tive governments that they periodically subject
ed by aspiring politicians to new propositions for
change and reform. Id ralorem is but another of
series which has preceded it of this character that
have from time to tme disturbed the quiet of the
people Of Nortl-Carolna, pregnant with evil, with
out any redceming quality for the public benefit.
1t is always desirable when things working
WELL and no complaint by the people, that politicians
should let them alone, especially when the change
proposed is so radical, such palpable innovation
upon all former usages as is the proposed al ralorem
system of taxation.
The simple abstract proposition that all should
lie taxed in exact proportion to what each indvidr-
Il is WORTH strikes the mind at first view as the
most equal and just mode of raising revenue for
support of government. But the tallacy of such
conclusion is manifest, when We consider the great
variety there is in the character and quality of prop
crty, and in the pursuits ard occupations of the
people, together with the peculiar institutions of the
State, and the utter impracticabiity of such sys-
TEN OF taxation.
The basis upon which the advocates of all ralorem
found their arguments to prove its justice and pro-
priety, so far as | have been able to understand
Them may be fairly stated in the form of syogism,
thus
All men are equally protected in their persons
and property by the government. Government
can't afford that protection without revenue There
fore all men should contribute revenue to the gov
ernment in proportion to the protection received
Corolary-it is right, just and equal that all men
shall contribute revenue in proportion to the net
value of their respective estates.
Now this argument is rig ht in the premises but
the conclusion and inference are evidently wrong if
not absurd. There is no proportion in the premises
By what rule in logic is proportion gotten in the
conclusion? The legitimate conclusion from the
premises is that every man should pay an equal
amount of revenue for support Of government. For
they say, and say truly, that all men are equally
protected in their persons and property Then
there is no proportion between the rich and poor
The man with his 100 acres of land and one negro
receives Just as much protection from the govern
ment as the man with his thousand acres and hun
drcd negroes. The rich man has more property
protected than the poor man, but the protection af
iorded by'the State is exactly the same in extent
and potency to the one as to the other and the ma
chnery and officials of the government necessary
to protect the man with his thousand acres and
hundred negroes are also necessary to the same en-
tent to protect the man with his hundred acres and
one negro. Consequently the expense of the State
for the protection afforded is no more for the one
than the other. Hence the obligation to support
government for the protection and benefit re-
ceived, is equal. Again, the man owning hundred
acres ofand in the sandhis worth so cents per acre
enjoys as much protection from the State in person
and property as the man who owns hundred
acres in the rich valley of the Roanoke worth $50
per acre. The same is true Of every other species
of property, showing conclusvely that while the
premises a:e true the conclusion is wrong and that
the inference is neither reasonable or just nor the
legitimate offspring of the argument.
1t is plain therefore, that it is impractcable to fix
a. system of taxation, the justice of which is based
alone on the amount of benefits and protection re-
ceived from the government. And although such
system of taxation would be the result of the
premises laid down in. the argument; vet they saw
no system of taxation is Just that is not based on
the value of property. WE'LL that would not be
just and equal becaust some property is profitable
ana some expensive TO the owner; some imperisha-
BILE and some subject to destruction and loss.
Hence it would seem that no general system of
taxation can be devised under our government that
WILL be just and equal on all of her citizens All
the people enjoy equal rights. and equal privileges
and are equally protected in their interest persons
and property, and for these benefits all are equally
indebted to the government Then, upon strict
principles OF equity and justice based upon obliga
uon and debt to the State, all who own property
OF the same species, without regard to quantity or
value, Should pay for support of the government
the same amount of taxes; and all, bota rich and
poor, pay alike on their heads
But IL is evident that arevenue law based on these
principles would ruin the poor Then it is of me-
cesslty and policy in contradistnction to Obligation
ana debt IN order to protect and favor the poorer
class, ana 10 raise revenue sufficient to meet the
wants Oh tne otate, that taxes must be imposed ac-
coruhg 10 the apparent ability to pay, having due
!Sslo W .!e peculiar nature of the property to he
taxed that is whether it is profitable and of certain
and permanent value to the owner or extensive
and of doubtful duration
And this Is the principle on which the State has
nasea her revenue system from the organization of
the government, as is evident upon the examination
OF her carly revenue laws, when no other property
was required to be listed for taxation but real estate
saves and stud horses. Lands were taxed then bv
the hundred acres,-and slaves, male and female
rom ~ years old to sixty, each poll paying as much
TAX as aoo acres of land most evidently discrmina.
tihg ID iaVor oil slave property. And no doubt for
e reason that young and old negroes are expensive
10 their owners, and all subject to casualties and
death, while land is profitable and permanent in its
uarauon. And it is worthy of note, that while
Pi'P.ity HAS Always been taxed simply on
the poll, and such only as are capable being nroft.
n9e to the owner,-there having been no change
except reducing the age from sixty to ffty years
Old when they shall be free from taxation-that real
estate was at an early day changed from a tax on
the LOO acres to a tax on valuation. This seems
not to have been understood by the champions of ad
e9Sortm or it would not have been said with such
emphasis by one, that the amended constitution re-
curing capitation tax to be equal on all subject to
the same, was LIBEL upon the principles of demo.
erGtac republican equahtq and an INSULT to the in
teltlgence, serespect and pat,iatis,n of our FAITH
ERs, as aoeU as Of ourselres*
That was an unfortunate clause in the orators
speech and had better have been suppressed in the
printed copy The odiun intended for others re-.
coils with vim that he can but feel, and NAV in
Mr. Bledsoes speech in the Senate of last Legislature
us proper that should say that am mainly indebted TO
MI speech for the knowledge have of the PRINCIPLES
ulon whichad caorem is advocated,