The Portland daily press., 1867-10-03

To the Editor of the Press = "a fe
In your editorial columns of the 2nd ult, ap-
peared the following sentence. Without nsodie-
cation or explanation. q G9m
8 IF any man is afflicted with such chronic
stupidity as to believe that government bonds
can be taxed, nothing but the restorative in
Thence of time can cure him." 5,ed 8W
Inc o3ect Of tina above was to convey the idea
that there exists no lawful right to impose any
taE upon bonds, and also to cast ridicule and
contempt upon all who believe otherwise.
Therefore 1T was characterized as an "infa-
NOUS declaration" in the communication In
the Machias Union of the 18th, in reference
to which you say, in your issue of the 23d.
1T is distressing fact that there are ta1o e.
X. Smart's in this unfortunate state. No. Q.
lives in Pembroke and, last week, addressed a
communication to the MaclffaS Union, call
ing attention to the infamous declaration of
the Portland Press, that government bonds are
not subject to state or municipal taxation.
that decl aration is the opinion Of the Supreme
Courts of the United States, and the Press,
though perfectly willing to share Judge Mar
shalPs infamy, has no disposition to steal his
hunder." tuAtH 9iiii1l'i8za ia1s4tt 9ni
t Attention was not called to this declaration.
~ s1as not then published By you and soas nev-
er before Observed in go,r paper.
Do you now admit that congress has law
full right to tax government bonds? .
~ s.i,i,,, d. *. Smart, Of Pembroke.
If Mr.. Smart's rather peculiar phraseology
is to be construct to mean that the repeated
decisions of the Supreme Court on this point
had never been noticed in the Press before the
23d of September, he is wrong. OF course he
believes what he says, but what an exhibition
man makes of himself when he ventures on
sweeping assertion of this kind, respecting a
matter of which he knows nothing. The
truth is that Judge Marshall's own words were
cited in an article in the Daily Press of July
30, together with thecomments of Kent and
Story, and the same article was reproduced in
the weekly edition issued Aug. i. 1t has been
established by repeated decisions that govern
ment bonds are not subject to State or munic-
ipal taxation under the "co Institution as it il"
The burden ofDemocratic complaint has been
that the bondholders were escaping their
share OF local taxation, We have shown that
this condition of things is not the result of any
recent legislation, but of the legitimate inter
probation of the constitution.
Mr.. Smart now wants to know if Congress
has lawful right to tax these bonds. We sin
cerely hope so; for unquestionably Congress
has taxed them. The income tax is assessed
equally upon the whole community, the bond
holders bearing their share oft like everybody
else. Whether mans income is derived from
cupons or cooking stoves, five per cent, OF all
, beyond what's required for the support of his
iauiiy is set apart to pay the national debt
anu every man who is man makes bis pay
ihehes on that score as cheerfully as he pays
ms own debts. If Mr.. Smart wants to 90 fur
ther and tax United States stocks more than
other securities, he should show some reason
for 1t. Meanwhile we beg to ask him cues
ton which we proposed to the Argus some
months ago, and to which we have received
no answer, You complain of the inequality
of the distribution of the burden of local taxa
ton. Now if Congress should collect a tax of
fifty per cent, on the par value of all the bonds
afoat next year, would that tighten the bur-
den of State and municipal taxation?