The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-04-09
rhis rule, though not free from objections IS liable
10 FEWER than any other that could be ueViseu'

sidered the just and equitable rule for The APP
pornonment OF taxes that could be made. IN, Inc
debates In ihc Federal Convention show TINS.
when the question OF the best mode Of ap.
portlonlng taxes. was under discussion Roger
the number Of people alone The best rule for mea.
surfing wealth as well as Representation" ,Eliiots
DEBATES '. 2yIl Mr Gorhani. OF Massachusetts, sup,
pofieu the pruprety OF establishing numbers rs the
rule lie sand that in Massachusetts estimates had
been taken In the different towns and that persons
had been curious enough 10 compare these estimates
with The respective numbers OF people. and II had
been found. even including Boston, that The most
exact proportions prevailed between numbers and
property" (ibid, 1901 MIR. Wilson, leading
member from PennsJ lvan.a, said:-"iie had
seen the western settlements or PENNSYLVANIA,
city OF Phadeipha could discover little other DIFF.
ference Than mat property was more unequalY
divided heie than there. Taking the same number
III the aggregate In the two situations lie believed
there would be little difference III their wealth and
ability to contribute TO the public wants" Qoid.
3Ol.l Dr. Johnson, OF Connecticut, Thought t'iat
wealth and population were the true, equitable rr'es
Of Representations; but lie conceived that these
two principles resolved themselves INTO one,
wealth." Gbid, $685. Ana when Tie vote
came TO be taken In the Federal Convention on lie
proposition that direct taxation ought 70 be proper
toned 10 representation, 1t passed without opposi-
ton. Qbd, 3Ol.) The attention OF those who have
supposed that this provision of The constitution was
adopted wholly 10 promote the interests OF slavery,
Is invited 10 Inc historical fact that when the Drsl
direct tax was under discussion IN Congress, SOUTH
crn neutrality-suspicious. among whom were James
with unyicding pcriinacity that the tax should DE
laid on slaves as wen as upon land.
PROPORTION or DIRECT TAXES MUST BE EXACT.
The trainers OF the constitution intended that the
apportOnment OF direct taxes among the States
should be IA more exact ratio TO the population even
than 1t is possible To appOrtion lie representation.
For example: suppose one representative to every
ninety thousand Inhabitants, II state might havea
large fraction left over but the appo tionment OF
direct taxes was designed to be with mathematical
accuracy 10 the precise number OF persons ascer-
tanned by the census After the irst appor-
tlonlnent OF Representatives had been made IA Tue
actual census, 1t was he'd that the estimate Of
the population OF the dercnt States was not suili
cenGly accurate Tor the arportlonmenl OF direct
tax; and That, consequently TIC general government
could not lay direct tax until Cc,ss SHOULD nave
been taken: Eloridge Gerry, VI nassaehus9,s
be appOrtiOned 10 the number Of representa-
tives. Mr.. Carroll, Of Maryland, replied tilat
'the number or representatives dia not aunt Or
proportion exact enough for rule or ta1GtiOH."
(ElliOt's Debates, W, 45l.) Mr.. Ellsworth Thought
SUCH rule unjust. There was great difference be-
tween the numbers OF inhabitants AZ rule III this
case. Even il the former were proportcned as
nearly as possible 70 the latter it would be very in
accurate rule. A State might have one representa-
tive only that had inhabitants enough for ana
half or more, II fractions could be applied" (bid.,
453.) Mr.. GerIys motion was defeated. The con.
ventiOn after debate decide1 that direct tdTeS must
DE apDOitOned IN the States iD more erdct ratio 10
the population than tie reDresentation coutd pos
Sibiv be dppO'tioned. elliot, W, 453.)
Many OF the leading patriots Of the Revolution
Patrick Henry among tllcm-were distrustIul Of
granting this power, even with the restriction placed
upon its exercise. Massachusetts accompanied her
adoption OF the constitution with resolution signed
by John Hancock, whose name heads the list Of sign
ers OF the Declaration Of Independence recommends
ing an amendment oil the constitution which should
prohibit Congress from cvying direct tax until They
should first nave made rcqulstion on the States.
Il Elliot, 1881 The same amendment word for word,
was recommended by the State Of New York aud The
State OF North Carolina, and similar resolutions by
South Carolina and Rhode Island and Virginia.
In the apportlonment OF the direct taxes which had
been laid by Congress previous TO the income tax the
ratio TO the census had been preserved with scrupn
lOus accuracy Tue actual Use vi the authority up
the time OF the imposition OF The income tax in
accordance with tne understanding Of the trainers Of
the constitution. Thus we see win what nicely the
direct tax OF twenty millions, approved August b,
1861, was appOrpOned. The ratio OF New York is
thus stated:-'sTo the state OF New York,
$1,000, 9ISss."
INJUSTICE TO NEW YORK.
In 1850 the apo, tionment Of representation was
changed. The principles OF report on the subject
made several years previously IN CONGRESS- by Daniel
Webster, adopted, and by their application the
relative representation of New York In the United
States House Of Representatives was reduced TO
make it. more accurately proportioned to her popula
/. The comparative representation or New York in
e W ee ~ ~ @
to take place IN the VI The Southern
States.
subjected to such reduction the proportion Of direct
taxes levied upon the State has been more than
doubled. In order TO render THIS Kind Of
legislation constitutional an amendment to the con-
stituton would be required, TO read Us follows:-
Representatives and direct taxes shall be dspro.
pOrtioned To each other ~ In the superintendent Of
the direct tax or 179S the put down to the State
OF New York was one hundred eighty-One thousand
six hundred eighty dollars seventy cents and seven
mills; and in that OF 1913 four hundred thirty thou
sand one hundred fOrty-One dollars end siXty-two
cents It will be seen that in laying all these direct
taxes the requirements Of the constitution were OBJ
served by apportionng them strictly according u
the census, even to the fraction OF dollar.
TIE ABOLITION OF SLAVERY NO REASON FOR CHANG
ING TUE RULE.
The aboshment or slavery, SO far from removing
the reason for apportiOning direct taxes 10 pOpua-
ton, creates an additional cause why the Northern
and Western States should insist adherng To IL.
Tie former slaves only trce-ilfti,s Of whose num-
Der was rcckoned In apportlonlpg representation,
are counted In full, the same as other persons,
and the former slave States VIII gain by THIS change
q large Increase OF representatives. Their proper
ton OF direct taxes shald be Increased corresponds
ingy, unless IL is proposed 10 give the coorcd man
the ballot and mt the same time exempt him from
taxation; TO make him not the equal OF the White,
but his super.or not merely "a man and brother,"
but q man and a master.
REBEL STATES DO not PAY.
The unapportoned income tax Is as unequal and
unjust In It's operation liz unlawful III principle.
Its burden rests almost entirely upon the loyal
portion OF tho country, as II IL were de-
signed as a punishment for patriotism ana a
reward by WAY OF pecun.y exemptGn
North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi Arkansas and
Texas-paid OF the tax collected in 1866 less than
come tax. The Eighth Congressional district
of New York paid S5,35o,75i ~. Mississippi
the State OF Jefferson Davis, paid, al told, the
enormous sum OF SO, no fractions. At this rate
the payment of the national debt, by an unap-
portioned income tax, would I've just about az easy,
far the part OF the rebel states ie concerned as
reputation IL is true that last year the rebel states
did little better; and for my own part, cannot
severely blame them, because they do not c0ntenu as
for prize for the privilege OF paying tax, the prin
ciple Of which was held 10 De unconstitutional when
South Carolina put IL to the test. Aud not until
oor faav MI fuf
covered, shall be evoked viii men manifest extreme
alacr1ty to pay for being whipped Heavy blows
subugate, but they can hardly be eNpccteu 10
quicken the conscience to Lively sense OF pecu-
mary obligation for the expense OF dealing them.
NEW YORK wRoNGED OUT or ELEVEN MILLION
DOLLARS IN ONE YEAR
The income TAX PAID by the Eighth congressional
district of New York In the year ending June 80
1867, amounted TO S5,4D5,678 "a. The income TAX
paid by the state OF New York, FOR tue same year.
amount that the state would have had 10 pay had the