Richmond Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1862-1865, 1864-04-18
The Confederate Tax Bills and their Int rur,
tation.

The Confederate lax ollls anu tnon Az drure.
tation.
Tbs sxiVences of the Government dep spdsd and the
condition of the country justified he,vy direct taxes in
1858 aud 1854 This taxation, ',though unusual, was
expected by the people, whose patriotism has been
evinced in many forms, and xno are always willing to
contribute literally in proportion to their means They
are sensible that in consequence Of the blockade Of
ports very little reVeEus can be anticipated atpresen
from the tariff aad hence under existing circumstance
direct tax is unavoidable While the people do not
complain, and have right to complain of taxation,
thew have the right to expect and require of their rep
resenlatves that taxation IhAl be imposed fairly and
iusly-tha. any errors defects which characierzs
the existing bills be corrected at the approaching session
of that when the system OF taxation has
been i'm proved, the tax bill be carefully and correctly
interpreted and faithfully observed BY all executive Of
6cers connected with its enforcement
When tax bill embraces great variety Of subjects
some of which are taxed in one mode, and come in
another is not always easy to arrive at correct and
satisfactory Interpretation. The language oil one sec
ton of the bill may be clear and Ineligible; another
section may be ambiguous, and another quite obscure
This is attributable in some degree to the imperiecton
of language but mainly to the inattenton, the ndo-
epcs or the haste of thole who draft the bills. In
framing tax BILL every important word should be con-
sdered, and all ambiguous terms be avoided The tax
bill of 1853 was lengthy, and some parts OF 1t difficult
Of prehension No wonder, therefore, that the in
erpretaon was embarrassing to the Secretary OF the
Treasury He was required to prepare instructions and
regulations for the enforcement of the bill and insruc
tons were accordingly Issued to the assessors during the
summer of 1868. Shortly after the assessors com
menced their assessment. Some months subsequently,
the creary, upon more mature rejection, and after
more thorough examination OF the tax bill charged HE
views in regard the tax on credits also on part OF
the income tax, and on part of the agricultural tax.
The instructions which had previously been given to the
assessors were revoked and and different instruc-
tons we're issued These proceedings caused consd-
cradle annoyance 10 the payers and no little trouble
TO the assessor.
We refer TO these things not for the pur-
pose tf condemnirg the Secretary, but for
another object We doubt not that he act.
ed cOrscientOusly His sHoia duties were laborious
and we think Congress erred in imposing upon him
alone the responsibility Of interpreting the tax bill and
issuing instructions for its execution. The duty Of in
terpretng the BIZ and o. preparing instructions for
carving it into effect, should no! have devoved upon
any one person, however able and honest but should
have been assigned to board consisting OF not less
than three, nor more than FIVE persons. This board
might have consisted Of the Secretary Of the Treasury
The Secretary Of State aud the Attorney General or
such other parsons Congress thought t to designate.
The corrsc. intel appreciation OF bills which likely
= og nnilOna NJ doilara Ia Of
very high importance Errors Of Interpretation may do
great injustice to the people by eSlrng them to pay
more taxes than Congress contemplated, and on the
other hand may cause loss OF revenue to the
government The tax PAYERS and assessors
should be spared the annoyance and vexation
of conflicting and dscordAnt instructions about the
ta1ea Instructions the assessors should DO clear and
plain, Is well as conform to the law. II the interpre
aon of the tax bills Is submitted to an able board,
and this board should be authorized to prepare instruc
tons for the assessors We should have better guar
sntee than We now have against of interpreA
lion. The Interpretation and the Instructions of a
board would command mora Of the pubic confidence
ami give more general satisfaction than the intsrprea
ton and instructions Of any one person could possibly
give Neither the Supreme Court Of the o. s. nor the
Court of Appeals il Virginia. consists of one Judge
There are several judges in each Of these courts and
the decision OF a mojorty Of the judges is more en-
titled to confidence and respect, than the opinion OF
any one Judge. In like manner>th the decision OF ma
Iority Of such board has been indicated, would
have more weight and tend more to alAy anxiety and
discomfort than the decision of the Secretary of the
Treasury alone He would probably be pleased if Con-
gr.a oud releve him Of some norton of the Uei9hty