The Waynesburg Republican. [volume] (Waynesburg, Pa.) 1867-18??, 1868-05-06
DEMOCRATIC. PRINCIPLEs-A Il

equai taxatlon OF all kllluS OI prop
erty.
Democrat. Yes that refers to the
Government bonds, which are unjustly
exempt from taxation, while all other
kinds Of property are taxcl. s.'i
For. And do you regard the debt
OF the nation US on II par With all
other kinds Of property. r,7 ..
Dan. Certainly, Why not?
For. Because, il that were true, then
the more the nation were in debt the
richer it would be. t.
Dem. No Because this is debt
due from one class of people to anoth-
er-trom the taxpayers to the bond
holders. Of course such a debt does
not add to the total wealth of the
country. .rI u. !
For. Ifit is debt due from the
taxpayers to the bondholdars, then
whatever increases the rate of interest
upon it Or the amount of the principal
adds 50 much to what the taxpayers
have TO pay.
Dem. Yes, | suppose so.
For. And have you not always heard
that the "borrower is the servant of
the lender" meaning that the lender
could lend where he pleased, but that
| the borrower must borrow where he
can. The lender to Il government
will lend or not, as the rate of inter-
est suits him. If the Government Of
iers five per cent. and he would lend
at FIVE, then, if the Government pro-
poses to tax the loan one per cent. he
will only lend at six. Has not every
proposition introduced into Congress
for taxing the bonds recognized these
facts by adding to the rate of interest
payable on the bond a percentage
exactly equal to the amount of tax it
was proposed to collect from the bond
holder
Dem Yes, | admit that on all new
loans, if it were known in advance
that the bonds were going to be taxed
an additional rate of interest would be
charged, equal to the tax imposed.
For. And this additional rate of in
torost must be paid by the taxpayers
so that if it were proposed to tax all
the intercst-paving part of the nation
al debt, viz, 2,000,O00,000 one per
cent, exactly $20000,000 more inter
est would have to be collected from
the taxpayers to pay it with ? How
would this benefit the taxpayers.
Dem, All, but yon are surYosing
that the tax is levied before the loans
are made, so that the crclitors of the
Government have notice Of it. We
are proposing to tax the bonds al
ready issued. Such a tax we think
would fall on the bondholder-would
it not. .
For. In the first instance it certain
ly would. But in the long run it
would fall upon the Taxpayers. But
does not the Democratic party profess
to be bound by the Constitution OF
the United States upon all ques-
tiOns.
Dem, Yes. The Constitution as
construed by the Supreme Court.
For. But thlt court has at least
three times decided that no State OF
or other local government within the
limitsoftho United States had thcpowcl
under the Constitution to tax tho
bonds of the United States.
Dem. Indeed! | have read the
Constitution through, and found moth.
ing whatever on the point.
For. Did you not find two clause
one authorizing Cogress to "borrow
money on the credit of the United
States" and the other declaring
the National Constitution, and the
laws made in pursuance thereo
to be supreme over any law of the
States?
Dem. Yes. But fail to see how
that prevents a State from taxing {
national bond.
For. fla State can tax it one pei
cent. on the interest, can they moi
tax it six per cent? And is not a ta1
of six per cent. annually equal to tas
of 100 per cent. on the principal, anc
so absolute reputation ? And woulC
} not that make the power of the natior
to borrow completely dependent up
on, and subordinate to, the power of
state to tax.
Dem. Well, if the object to be at
taincd Is right, there must be som
way to accomplish it. Certainly ther,
is no justice in taxing the property o
taxpayers and leaving the property o
bondhollcrs untaxed.
For. Why not? Have we not seel
that the exemption of the bonds from
taxation lowers the rate of interest b,
so much, and consequently lessons tn
amount to be paid by the Taxpayer
by S20,000,000 per annum, and tina
the benefits of this reduction are dis
tributcd among the taxpayers exactl,
in proportion to the amount of take
they pay -? Can there be any fairc
mode of dividing the benefits of tn
exemption of bonds from taxation thai
to divide it among the taxpayers il
proportion to the amount for whicl
they are taxable?
Dem. Well that is not exactly tn
point of view from-which | looked a
it. 1t has looked to me very mucl
like the oppression of the poor tax
! ~ A T. Al l. i