Daily Ohio statesman. [volume] (Columbus, Ohio) 1855-1870, 1867-08-29
John sherman and the Finances.


sisted in ignoring the question until they
were driven to respond. Senator SHERMAN
was brought forward at, Canton, on the
Goth inst, as-the great Radical expounde1
OF this question. In the outset of his re-
marks upon the finance question, he as
serts: 1.-THE general principle of our tax
laws is to collect as much as possible from
duties on imported goods. The reasons
are that such taxes are most easily collect
ed in the seaboard cities and mainly at the
single port of New York. They are main
ly on articles OF luxury, such as silks
broad cloths and wines, and. are paid by
those most able to pay them" 80
This assertion is false from beginning to
end. The general principles of our present
tax laws are embodied in the internal rev.
enue laws'of the country The amount re-
ceived from this source during the last fis-
cal year ending June 80, 1866, according to
the report of the Secretary of the Treasury
was $2l2. 2.6O7. .927 II, and from the tariff
Sl32O37, ,O6S 30. IJttil-
Mr.. SHERMAN speaks OF import duties in
general terms and grossly misrepresents
when he asserts that "tbis branch of the
revenue is collected principally from arti.
cles of luxury" Every article used by the
laboring classes is taxed either by the pro.
visions of the e-internal revenue laws or the
tariff, and by far the largest portion of the
revenue from both sources is collected from
articles of ordinary domestic use. This as
sertion is so frivolous as not to deserve spe-
cial notice. With the laws in the hands o.
the Radicals, SHERMAN, however, is com.
PEELED to admit that 'the failure to collect
the whisky tax is the scandal and reproach
of our system" and in the very next para
graph, in speaking of this same
source of revenue, asserts that "these
taxes on imports, incomes, whis-
ky and tobacco, in my judgment,
will soon be amply sufficient to pay thein-
terest on our debt and meet our necessary
expenditures" The inconsistency of these
assertions is perfectly apparent. In the
first place, he asserts that the Radical par
ty are too dishonest and incapable to col
lect. the whisky tax. Then again with
this uncollectable means, he asserts that
the Radicals will be able to pay the inter-
est and expenditures of the Government.
The argument leads simply to this con-
clusion, that if the Government should be
transferred to party capable of collecting
the revenue it would accomplish what he
claims; thereby showing the necessity OF
a change of the administration of our at
fairs. 1t will be observed that SHERMAN
offers no excuse for his party because OF
its shameful and dishonest conduct in this
regard.
The next fallacy of the gentleman's argu-
ment is developed by his asserting that the
taxes on imports, incomes auhisky and tobacco
will accomplish certain ends, when, in
fact, with the Government in the hands OF
the Radicals, the revenue, so far, from
those sources, does not amount to half the
amount it is claimed it will amount to
Forcing the conclusion again, if these
sources of revenue ever attain to what is
claimed for them by SHERMAN, it must be
done through the agency of the Demo-
cratic party. The Radicals, after fair
trial, having totally failed, cannot certain
ly claim that this can be accomplished by
them. The speaker claims great credit for
his party on account ''of the aoondeuul sue
cess of cur financial measures" and claims
that the party who has accomplished these
financial wonders should be continued in
power .'to solve all new problems as they
rise."
The only thing wonderful about the
matter is, how they managed to involve
the country in debt to the extent they
have.
If debt is a success, then they have been
ieminently successful.
This practice of begging the question by
appealingto to the prejudices of political as
sociates, is beneath the dignity of any
gentleman of moderate abilities. Yet,
SHERMAN's principal Argument consists in
appealing to the people to "trust us be-
cause we are loyal"
Speaking of National Banks he parades
all the possible aguments favoriHg those
institutions. and then concludes by saying;
Z" If these reasons are not sufficient to sus-
tain the system, then it will fall, and
swarms of State banks will spring up
again."
He here virtually admits his arguments
favoring those institutions amount to moth
ing, and then sets up the scare-crow OF
State banks as protection to his pet insti-
tutions. But why this deception? A
United States Senator engaged in this spe-
cies of tallacious reasoning is simply con-
temptible.
Can he deny but what Congress, if itcan
make paper money legal tender, in all the
States, can likewise prohibit the creation
of banks by the States? Besides, if the
Government is comforting no special favors
upon these institutions, why is it that they
supplanted the State banks? This is sim
ply nonsense, and if SHERMAN was an hon
est man he would have placed this question
before the people in its true light, and told
them to choose for themselves as to finan-
cial policy.
He claims saving of $4,000 600 per year
to the Government from them in taxation,
and yet fails to explain how this tax is re-
allied, or to admit that the Government is
paying these same institutions $20,000,00C
per year for nothing. The question is at
loose ends with you, JOHN. You had bet
ter repair to the seclusion of your home
until you have figured the matter over a
little. With your $4,000 salary and mile
age, you do not feel much like admitting
the oppression of present taxation, but il
you were engaged in earning an honest
lixyinor hu Of
doubtless comprehend why these COM
plants are made.
A Republican Paper Denouuces
the Platform of It's Party in
G'reble COunty-The Democratic
Organ Defends IL.