Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1867-01-09
APPEAL TO THE COURTS.

The friends Of liberty in modern times
are indebted to no genius, no patriotism
no courage, SO greatly as TO that CT the
great Earl of Chatham. He stood up in
the British House of Lords and asserted
the great principles of rational freedom
which we're incorporated into our system
after the Revolution. His eloquence was
of the very highest order, his courage the
most daring, and his sentiments the most
lust. An aristocrat himself, he denounced
political vassalage, and lost place and
power in defense of the rights of the peo-
pie. He opposed the assumed right OF
Parliament to tax the Colonies without
their consent. Taxation could not exist
under the British Constitution without
representation. Taxation" he said, SIS
no part Of the governing or legislative
mower" The cases of CHESTER and Dur.
HAM show that under the most arbitrary
reigns, Parliament was ashamed OF tax
ing a people without their consent, and
allowed them representation. A higher
and better example might be taken
from Wales. That principally was
never taxed by Parliament until it was
incorporated with England. Again, he
said 1T is contrary to that essential,
that unalterable right IN nature, in
grated into the British constitution as
fundamental law, that what man has
honestly acquired is absolutely his o'0n,
which he may freely give, but which can
not be taken from him Without his con-
sent" This is the highest authority that
can be cited in support Of the PROPOSE
ton that taxation without representa-
ton is unconstitutional. We borrowed
the idea from England, and incorporated
it into our own system. Our fathers
fought bloody war of seven years in
resistance of that, and other usurpar
tons. In our representative system,
every citizen is faxed because he IS rep
resented, and is presumed to yield his
assent. That assumption is only legiti-
mate when he is represented. The mo-
ment he is denied representation, that
moment the rightful power ofthe Govern
ment to tax him stops. Why2 Because,
what man possesses is his own abso-
lutely, and cannot be taken from him
without his consent That cannot be
given except through his representative.
We hold, therefore, that the tax col
lected in the South, SO long as it is
unrepresented in Congress, is unconsti-
tutional, and should be resisted-resisted
in the courts. The Declaration of INDIE
pendence says the right of representation
in the Legislature is inestimable to the
people, and formidable 10 tyrants onty;'
and alleges, as one of the causes justify
ing the war about to commence, that the
King of Great Britain had imposed tdres
on the colonies lcithout their consent
That principle was deemed worth fight
ing for by our fathers. Is it not worth
suing for by their posterity The South
will pay to the Government this year, in
the matter Of the cotton tax alone,
more than twenty million dollars.
The Internal and other Govern
ment taxes will carry the figures mil
lions beyond that sum. And all this too,
when not a man in the South does con
sent to It, is asked to consent to it, or
could legally consent to it If asked.
England thought it wrong to tax Wales
when it was a principally, because it
was not represented in Parliament That
Government, meanly as she treats Ire
land. does not tax that unfortunate coun-
try without allowing it representation.
But the Congress Of the free and boosted
republic of the United States, taxes the
Southern States without their consent
II our humble voice could be heard oil
over the South, or if it possessed any
power of persuasion, we would counsel
the people to resist in the Courts this
outrageous assumption of right on the
part Of Congress to tax them while it de