Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-05-19
me ous.tio 30 b rsss, II,,,,

4, - Ine Question of Taxation. 60
. We understand that Mr.. Pool lays much stress
upon the action of Southern States which have
adopted the dd salorem system Of taxation We
have already shown that Mr. Pool, by his platform,
from the provisions Of which he cannot escape pro
poses to tar erery thing tn North Carolina at the
same uniform, unbending rate. In our next we will
take up the Constitutions and revenue laws of the
Southern States and show that no State has adopt
ed Mr.. Pools horizontal unbendng rule of ad "a
loren, but that on the contrary, Determinations
made between articles, and certain articles are ex-
empted altogether. Mr.. Pools party could not ex-
empt if they would. They may discriminate, but
they cannot exempt We say they cannot do this
with tbsir present platform but they may re-as-
semble their Convention if they choose and change
their platform so as to permit an exemption from
taxation of certain amount Of property. But they
will not do this. True to their old habit of throw
ing dust in the eyes of the people, and of appealing
to one section against another, they prefer their
present resolution the subject as under it they
can take one ground in one locality and another
ground in another. Never having been truly State
party, as they are not national party, they have
system of policy which embraces the whole State
ing to sections to obtain votes.
But Mr. Pool wants a Convention to make one
change in the Constitution Mr. Pool is in earnest
or he is not. There can be no halfway ground as
to that If he really desires Convention, and
Convention shall be called that Convention will be
unrestricted, and therefore free to make dozen
changes as well one. If called on the federal ba-
sis, as Mr. Pool proposes, it will be sectional body,
for the West as is well known already has the
House of Commons, which is chosen on that basis,
by from eight to ten majority Is the East ready for
that2 Does the West desire it? We think tru-
ly answer both questions In the negative. The East
will never consent for the purpose of making one
amendment of the Constitution, to call Convention
on the federal basis while the West, which prefer
red the legislative mode of amendment in the case
Of free suffrage, ard which desires change of
the basis of representation will not voluntarily
counter the trouble and expense of open Conven-
ton-for no other Convention can be called-for the
purpose merely of striking out the clause in the
Constitution relating to capitation tax. But if Mr..
Pool and his party not in earnest in this NATTER
and are only promising certain portions of the peo-
pie Convention, as they did in 1850 and in 1862,
Tor the purpose OF obtaining votes by exhibiting
what we believe they do not feel-a great degree Of
confidence in the popular power,-we say that if
this is their policy, the people will be very apt to
see through it and treat them to decided minority
Of votes, they did in the contests referred to.
We call upon the people Of all parties to bear in
mind in connection with this question OF taxation,
that Mr.. Pool is appealing to the non-slaveholders
against the Shareholders and whether Intentionally
or not is thus arraying one class against another.
We frankly admit that we do not believe this is
Mr.. Pools intention but such is nevertheless the
inevitable result of his mode of treating the subject
The day may come, and it may not be distant, when
the State will need the aid of all her to protect
her from aggression and injury. Instead therefore,
of dividing people, it should be the aim of every
patriot to unite them. They cannot and they will
not be united by the course which Mr.. Pool is pur-
suing. q H". '..' ."