Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1868-01-21
HE PERCENTAGE OF TAXATION.

are cuLIbty uulauliiiAIs D. a. usA'Ft
features pale before the one We shall
name last, viz:
THE PERCENTAGE OF TAXATION.
Bearing 10 mind that the tax Of ten per
cent. upon nett income, and on thatonly,
when it exceeded certain sum, was re-
garded excessive and repealed, what
principle can sustain this tax? The per-
csntage has a fabulous sound, and weuld
be regarded as incredible If unsustsined
by facts and figures. In my own case,
the nominal nett income was SI7O-the
tax, Sl325-which Is about l75 per cent.
of what was nominaliy left me. Such is
it's relation to income now for its rela-
ton to principal:
Were all the capital employed In the
production, in my case, sold to-day to
ascertain the value, the tex would be
OUeT fifteen per cent on the principal.
Aud this ls an extreme case OF success.
While writing this communication was
called out to attend public sale. Such
land as mine sold at from 81 20 50 p per
acre. Ny average tax was S5 Is per
acre Of eOtton-the btst acres paid over
SIS.
The freedmen on my place had joint
interest Ia the crop. The average tax OF
full band was SIG; OF q woman, SO 50,
One man, Elijah, with several IN family,
paid S5T so as his share. Elijah has none
Of this worlds goods, except'his children,
ard their bedding. Another honest
fellow, REUBEN, one Of the best aud most
faithful hands / ever knew, with a wife
and seven children (perhsps q baby
mOIe), the Oldest too small to plOw,
pays out Of bis ample income-how
much? 81 80 tax, leaving him for gen.
eral family purposes Sl25. l am sorry
for Reuben, and have helped him as
much as possible; but my own means
are too stinted to help much. These are
not theoretical or speculative views Of
the cotton tax. It's operation converts
my SUCCESS into failure, and strips me Of
all my earnings, so that If dependent !
only las most planters are on that source |
Of income, | should be penniless. II /
ruins also the value Of my land, by de- I
strOying its9 annual profits. But in /.
ReaOen's case It presses on the means OF /
WFenChes the very shoes /
from the feet of bis childie1, the clothes 4
{ ON their backs, the meat from their /.
teeth. The hardship is cruel and mex /
pTessible. It is im possible for the black 4
men to maintain the Old s}dUsi.y standard I
Of comfort. If you say I paid too little, I
what did [ have left2 No. Strike the .
balance, and the Government .
got the lions share, even ia ldy case. /
Strike the real balance, and it got all. 1
In very many eases it gots all the man .
could serape together of his own means,
and the additional amount he was able .
to borrow. It is the confiscation of his .
income and his credit.
Do not discredit these things because
they are strange, They are true, and / .
have many to tell.
All the State, county and corporation
axes 1 ever paid ia my life before the
war land / had paid for fifteen years.. /
we're less than this one form Of the cot
.on tax. Eljahis tax this year was
greater than nv average State tax when
lWning over 300 acres Of land aud sixty
negroes, besides other property.
TIE property Of Wilkes county before
he war YVES estimated or the tax book
1t 81. 2S3 ,O00 (say in 1889 in gold. In
.S57, in green backs, at 81 SOP 0G0- Now .
{ would not exceed 81, 600, 900 IL green
,aeks, fJr the depreciation since April,
S57, has been One-third.
Now, observe the following fact:
The cotton tax alone amounts to fee
md q Ealf per gent Of the grsss property .
If the county, whether oc5u-5-t in tbs /
culture Of cotton or not, and nr38aJ,y to |
.welve per cent. of that ezprt say 80 oc-
;upied.
Had the same rate OF tax been levied .
before the war on the prOp=-ty II tue .
county as it then stood, the extrE0-dil-ry .
result would have been this tina. -L5 JaG I
# Wilkes county would have eEce5ded /
the tax actuslly levied on the whole /
State OF Georgia I speak the words OF /
truth and soterne5S. It is the tax which /
s wild, not the account givel Of it. I'M 1
lgiae q British statesman, with his |
budget, considering this tax.
When Fepes!ed, the operation Of the /
law should be retroactive, to 4
cover the crop of 1868. The reasons flr
repeal tall apply to retroactive repeal /
10 their fall force. Perhaps the most /
and specific reason for re-
PEAL which can be addressed to those l
who passed the act is % be found, not IN I
any general argument On its original .
merits, but in the great change Of cir /
since its passage, for which /
change the act Itself makes no provision. /
When the act was psssed, the price OF 1
the staple was about thirty cents per /
pound, gross. In the interval between /
the passage of the act and its practical .
operation on the crop of 1859, the gross !
price has fallen 70 an average Of fifteen |
cents. This, however, does not express |
the real change Of circumstances as re- /
ated to taxation.
The net value over the cost o. produc- I
lien when the tax act was passed, as |
compared with the net value now, fur /
nishes the true ratio Of capacity ID bear /
taxation. The net value at that time /
nav have been fifteen cents; now the |
net excess is nothing. The cotton tax |
II 1867 comes out Of no profit; it Is /
merely a tax dry 80, based on no income, |
but in its operation s sort Of penalty for |.
the thing.
II cannot be believed that Congress in
tended the law to OF crate so Cppressively. |
The law made no provision for the emer- |
yency which has arisen; but the emer- |
gency is before Us. If, with present |
lights, Congress would not pass the law, |
it has the present lights to guide its &C.
ton in rePe3l.
If not retrospective, then the worst off |
and the most honest planters are left |
without reliei-those who were unable to |
hold their cottou-those who were de- |
to meet their obligations. The |
repeating law should refund to the pro- |
ducer of the crop of 1867, who is the |
party paying the tax, either in fact or by |
a lowance made. lit be asked, What, |
then, will the South pay?n the answer |
is, at viii pay on the same bssis as
O,her sections Of the country" To the |.
argument that the consumer, not the /
producer, pays the tax, We have but one |
sentence of reply, viz: that this is not /
true, uchen competition among sellers is |
SIS great as among boyeTs Of cotton.
We have spoken OF the smallness of /
the margin of profit in former times. |
The present of the South is distinguished |
from the past by these features l. Loss |
of capital. 2 Fewer laborers, women and /
boys not working. 8. Less efficiency of |
labor. Lands worse worn, fencing |
down, bitches filed, buildings dilspi- |
dated, inferior stock, inferior tools, GIN |
houses, screws, etc. 5. Fewer, as well as |
worse, horses and mules. 8. Increased |
in raising hogs. z. Higher |
prices Of all sorts Of supplies and means |
Of production. s. After payment of sx- |
penses, lower prices of cotton in gold.
These things show that we have no ca /
pscity to bear incrs ased burdens OF taxa |
ton. The old slavery standard of living /.
cannot be maintained for white or black. |
In calculating for the freedmen l employ |
for the year 1868, am alarmed, as well |
at their prospects as my own. / have |
doubted seriously whether to plant at all, |
and do 80 with hesitation, as much for |
others sake as my own.
II the action Of Congress be punitive,
it is partial, unjust, and as operative on
their friends as on the worst OF rebels.
Many fearfuIly hard cases couls oe uar-
rated. The future looks gioomier than
the present or past. The deprect~ta5n in
the value OF products has already re-
dueed real estate to q very low ecb-lower
at every sale. Like the Egyptians ia tie
years OF famine, We are bought up.
First our money goes, then our cattle,
then our lands, and ourselves. Are We
not already, white and black, uHder the
foregoing exhibit-which can be sbund-
antly verified merely slaves of the Gov
ernmentf There has been no oonfsca-
on, 60 RoyAinei but what was emanci-
patton but the confiscation Of slave prop
erty2 And, under the name of taxa
ton, are we not t0orked on our 0s0n
JaRds-both virtually eonhseated, our
lands and ourselves
A planter, whose success was remark
able, in Southwestern Georgia, told me,
after careful computation, that he would
make deed of his place to the Govern
ment-he taking the tax, and the Gov
ernment the net profts. Since that