Semi-weekly standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1853-18??, 1860-04-25

the most complex which agltStcS the BRAIN oI Tue
statesman solved forever Now the Democratic
principle has been and is now to adjust taxa
ton to bear equally as practicable upon the
curious ntereaS and cl'sses Of properly IN all sec
tons of the State 1t takes into consideration not
the rale of the property alone, but its actual or
potential productiveneSs the cost OF its protection
whether it be great litte the ability OF the owner
to pay a contribution to the government; whether
the tax will be a voluntary or eXtorted one; and
also whether the general interest of the State and
of the whole people demands that the ownership OF
that species of property shall be fostered or dlScour
aged So far from the concluding clause in the clev-
enth resolution of the platform of the Democratic
party recognizing the justice and fairness of nd "a
loren taxation and so far from that partys being
willing to apply it to every subject of TAXATION save
and except slave property by advocating an e9uall-
cation of the burdens of taxation, it expressly re-
pudiates any such doctrine, contending that no
system of taxation can be just and fair which looks
solely and only to the monied value of the property
to be taxed, without any regard to the other ee-
mentS indicated, which to he regarded III fixing
the amount of any excise and the only reason why
taxing property of different species I'D ratoreln is
not always ruinous is not because the principle is
correct one but because many different species OF
property of the same value chance to have the same
productivencss; the cost Of their protection Is &c
cidentdUy the same; the owners chance to DC
equally able to pay taxes outof their profits; ana
terested in fostering diScouraging the ownership
of EACH In such cases. and under such circum-
stances, the ad ralOrem system may be resorted to
with Justice and propriety. The Democratic doc
trine of ad rdlOrem tariff upon imported goods,
is not only entirely different in its character from
this proposed system of taxation but in its principle
it clearly opposes it. The Democratic party is not
to be deceived and misled nor will you be, fellow
citizens, by words The tariff bill Of 1916 classified
all articles likely to be imported under nine sche-
dulles, discriminating in favor of articles of prime
necessity and against luxuries-the tax upon which
last is eventually paid by the wealthy consumer
and ended with free list. Schedule LIST, containing
brandies, &c, was subjected to duty of one hun
bred per cent on the value of the goods: while
schedule Sth, containing hides, dyestuffS fert-
and other useful articles in trade manufactures
and agriculture only paid duty of five per cent on
the value; and schedule 9th containing, tea, coffee
and other articles of prime necessity, makes out the
free list subjected to no duty at all But the plan
Of the Opposition party if there is meaning in
language, is one uniform unbending rule of the
same per centage on all species of property and no
free list Carrying out their principle to its natural
and logical results, the Opposition party does not
recognize the garng fact that taxes are much more
onerous to the poor man than to the rich; that the
small farmer or day laborer, who has managed to
collect around him his small. but to him ineXprcs-
sibly DEAR stock of household furniture and agrcul
tural implements; his COW and pigs and little COM
forts can less afford to pay per cent on his few
hundreds than the owner of thousands can to pays
per centage upon his wealth, is fact totally ignor
ed every article that is capable of being owned to
be subjected to an equal per centage of taxation;
and while the Opposition party strive to avoid this
legitimate result of their principle system and pro-
mugated platform, the published proceedings Of
their convention make them consistent in spite Of
themselves; for Mr. Turner, of Orange" says the
Pol in fbo off iol If thair
ceedIngs
Moved to take the vote on al rdlorem, offering
an amendment against taxing such small matters
tin cups, plates, &c. Mr.. Badger proposed change
in his amendment, which was accepted The amend
ment of Mr. Turner was then adopted
Mr. Henry, of BERTHE, then moved reconsdera-
ton ofthe amendment entering his protest against it.
Mr. Barringer, of Cabarrus, seconded Mr. Henry.
Mr. Rayner hoped Mr. Turner would withdraw it.
The motion to reconsider prevailed; not being
withdrawn, the amendment was REJECTED. The
question then recurring upon the passage of the dd
rdlOrenl resolution, it passed almost unanimously"
Thus have they not accidently but adviSedly
agreed to advocate the taxation OF the mnuteSt article
contrary even to the teachings of Holy Writ; for,
when the Man of sorrows in Jerusalem the rich
men casting their gifts into Gods treasury, and
certain poor widow cast in thither her two mites,
he turned unto his disciples and said to them, " of
a truth ] say unto you, this poor widow hath cast
in more than they all, for all these have o: their
abundance cast in unto the offerings of God but
she of her perjury hath cast in all the living which
she had" Gods treasury may receive such gifts
for verify they have their reward; but woe! woe
unto that earthly government which fills its Golfers
with the pence wrung from the hard hands of honest
poverty, which cnrchcS its treasury with the scanty
pittance of the widow and the orphan
FeilowCitizenS we have asked over and over
again Of the advocates of an al raL0rem system of
taxation, hy all property ought to be taxed in pro-
portion to its value: and up to this moment 10 rea-
son is given for it. but the rccraton of the propo-
stOn itself and the few efforts that have been made to
give some satisfactory andlogcI reasons for CHANGE
Ill our whole system Of taxation, when carefully cX-
amincd, show clearly that the conclusion to which
the Opposition party has arrived is based upon
false assumption
Government, say the advocates Of 0d caIorcB tax-
aton is Instituted for the protection of persons and
property, and therefore persons and property ought
to pay the expenses of Government; and pr0perfy
ought to pay those expenses in proportion to its
value, because the cost of its protection is measured
by the value of the property This is the course of
argument that must be pursued when the matter is
fully stated
Now, merely pausing to point out that this mode
OF argument cannot have eren an appearance of
truth, when the revenues raised are not to be ap-
Pled to the ordinary expenses of the government
out TO the extraordinary purposes Of constructing
railroads, digging canals. and paying debts already
contracted 10y the State for internal improvements
and that same regard ought to be had in laying ex-
cses to the objects upon which the revenues of the
State are to be expended, venture the assertion
that neither one of the propositions upon which the
Opposition party rely to establish their conclusion
is sound one IN political science
1t is not true that Government is instituted for the
protection of persons and property; nor is it fact
that the cost of the protection of each species of
property is regulated by the monied value of the
property itself 1t is sometimes loosely said that
government is Instituted for the protection of per-
sons and property, but when fully stated, according
to all authority, the true proposition is, and the
meaning attached to the loose statement above set
forth is: That government is instituted for the pro
lection Of the rights Of persons Those rights are
the right of personal liberty; the right of personal
security, and the right Of prirate PROPERTY 1t is
the right of the citizen to and in his property which