Fayette County herald. [volume] (Washington [Washington Court House], Fayette County, O. [Ohio]) 1860-1???, 1867-09-05
Taxing Government Bonds.

The Democracy are sorely ag-
grieved because United States bonds
given for the sinews Of war, -
wherewith to crush the rebellion.
are exempt from taxation. Their
groans over them, and their agonies
over a "privileged class" and a
"bonded aristocracy' are distress
ing to contemplate. One would
think from their virtuous indigna-
ton that such thing had never be-
fore been done-that it was here
tofore unheard-of wickedness. and
a monstrous unconstitutionality OF
which the immaculate Democracy
had never heem guilty. What are
the facts p? The Indianapolis Jour
nal has been examing the record
upon this subject, and finds that he
tween the first day of August, 1890,
and the first day of March, 1861,
more than fifty acts were passed by
Congress authorizing the President
or Secretary Of the Treasury to
borrow money on the credit of the
United States, and there was not in
any ore of them a provision that
the bonds, or other evidences of
Indebtedness issued to those who
loaned their money to the Govern
ment, should be subject to State
taxation.
The Democracy boast that they
ruled the country with rare intervals
from the organization of the Gov
ernment till they plunged it into re-
bellion in 1861 Passing over the
loan acts of the Democracy in its
earlier and better days, let us see
whether they did not authorize the
issue of mtaxable bonds within
the personal recollection Of many
of our readers.
On the 22d day of July, 1916, a
Democratic Congress passed an
act authorizing loan of Sl0,000,-
900, free of lax, by decision of
the Supreme Court This was ap-
proved by James X. Polk, a Demo
cratic President. On the 28th of
January, l847, the same Democratic
( Congress passed another loan act
Of $23,000,000, which was approx
ed by the same Democratic Presi-
dent. States were not allowed to
tax the bonds thus authorized.
On the 31st of March, 1S4S, a
further loan of S16,00O,000, free
from tax, was authorized by Dem
ocratic Congress and approved by
the same Democratic President.
In 1858, a loan of S20,000,0O0
was authorized by Democratic
Congress and approved by James
Buchanm-exempt from State tax
alton.
On the 22d of June, 1860, the
same President approved another
loan of S21 100000 in bonds, free
from taxation, passed by a Demo
cratic Congress,
On the 9Th of February, 1861,
the same President, feebly tottering
to the close of his imbecile admin
istration, approved loan of S25,-
100000, authorized by Democrat
ic Congress, and exempt from taxa
ton. ...
These loans were made when
Government credit was not shaken
by n gigantic rebellion, and when
Government loans might properly,
if ever, have been subjected to a
tax. If it is a Democratic princi-
pie that Government bonds should
be taxed, why do not their acts il
lustrate their principles? Why
does their former practice give the
lie to their loud-mouthed profess
sions now? There is but one ex-
planation. The Democracy desired
the rebellion to succeed by force Of
arms; failing in that, they seek
some other crisis in which they
hope to seize the reins CT power,
and establish the principles for
which the rebels fought, and which
were decided against them by the
bayonet. For this they are insidi-
ously working to create a financial
revulsion, for the overthrow of the
Government credit. Let every man
who has a dollar to lose examine
their schemes, be fully persuaded in
his own mind, and so let him act as
either to help or hinder such wick