Marshall County Republican. (Plymouth, Ind.) 1856-1878, 1868-04-23
Democratic Princfpies--A Dfa-
t-.fs Iogue. -rs..er,s AZ.


Democratic PrfBcfples--A DIN
.4asEaiids.F osne.swRrrhfr
Alter mature reflection upon bis recent
conversation with aweil-informed Demo
crat relative to the suffrage question, the
distinguished foreigner who has for some
time been in search of the principles ofthe
Democratic party, was Obliged TO conclude
that the party in question had no peculiar
claim to the doctrine that white men
should rule America, since the simpler
principle of the Republican party, that the
majority should rule, the majority being
white men, secured the complete suprem-
acy of the white race hey ond contingency
1t followed that the party cry 4" white men
shall rule America" was, therefore, aeover
for the real intent that the msjority should
not rule, AID hence that the minority
should rule. Having satisfied himself that
upon the suffrage question the Democratic
party had got hold of no new principle,
but only of a false assumption, viz: that
the Republican party was opposed to
white men controlling the Government,
the eminent student OF our institutions d.
rected his attention to the question wheth-
er the Democratic party has any financial
principles Meeting soon after a Demo
crat, well known throughout several coun-
ties as probable candidate for the Presi-
dency at the Chicago Convention, he re-
marked: -tat
Foreigner. was recently informed by
an intelligent Democrat that a leading f.
nancisl doctrine of the party is the equal
taxation Of all kinds Of property.
Democrat. Yes; that refers to The Govern
ment bonds, which are upjustly exempt
from taxation, while all other kinds of
property are taxed.
For. And do you regard the debt of the
nation IS on a par with all other kinds of
property?
DEM Certainly. Why not9
For. Because, if that were true, then the
more the nation were in debt the richer il
would be. sag
Dem. No! Because this is debt due
from one class of the people to another
from the taxpayers 10 the bondholders.
Of course such debt does not add to the
total wealth of the country.
For. If it is q debt due from the tax
payers to the bondholders, then whatever
increases the rate of interest upon it or
the amount of the principal, adds so much
TO what the tax payers have to payr
Dem. Yes, suppose So.
For. And have you not always heard that
the borrower is 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 q
government win lend or not, as the rate Of
interest suits him. Ii the government
offers five per cent. and he would lend at
| five, then, il the government proposes to
tax the loan one per cent, he Will only
lend at six. Has not every proposition in
troduced into Congress for taxing the
bonds recognized this fact By adding TO
the rate of interest payable on the bond a
per centage exactly equal to the amount
of tax it was proposed TO collect from the
! bondholder?
Dem. Yes, sdmi, that on ali new loans.
! if it were known in advance that the bonds
were going to be taxed, an additional rate oi
interest would be charged, equal to the tax
imposed.
For. And this additional rate Of interest
must be paid by the tax payers; so that il
it were proposed to tax all the interest
paving part of the rational debt, viz
50 000, 00l, 900 one per cent, exactly $780,
900 600 more interest would have TO be
collected from the Taxpayers to pay il
with? How would this benefit the tax
payers? .o.,....f
\ Dem. All, but you are supposing that
the tax is levied before the loans are
1 made, so that the creditors of the Gov
! eminent have notice of il We are pro-
posing TO tax the bonds already issued.
Such a tax we think would fall on tie
bondholder-would it not?
I For. In the first instance il certainly
would. But in the long run il would jail
upon the tax pay ers. But does not the
democratic party profess TO be bound by
the Constitution of the United States upon
all questions?
7 Dem. Yes. The Constitution as con
strued by the Supreme Court.
| For. But that court has st least three
times decided that no State or other Ices
! government within the limits Of the United
! States had the power under the Constitu
! ton TO tax the bonds of the United States
Dem. Indeedl l have read the Consti
ton through, and found nothing whatever
! on the point Z iBglg ffltW tEE
/ For. Did you not find two clauses, one
| authorizing Congress to "borrow money
on the credit OF the United States" and
! the other declaring tie National Constitu-
ton, and the laws made in pursuance
thereof. to be supreme over any law of the
/ Dan. Yes Blu. fail to see how tina,
prevents State from taxing national
4 bond.
| For If State can tax it one per cent.
! on the interest, can they not tax 1t six per
cent? And is not tax of six per cent,
! annually tqual TO . tax OF 1e0 per cent
on the principal, and SO absolute repudia-
ton? And would not that make the pow
! er of the nation 10 borrow completely de.
Y
power of State to tax?
Dem. Well, if the object to be attained
/ is right, there must be some way to accom-.
plish it. Certainly there is no justice in
taxing the property OF taxpayers and
leaving the property OF bondholdors IN
4 taxed. {. sel
For. Why note Have we not seen that
| the exemption of the bonds from taxation
lowers the rate of interest by so much, and
consequently lessons the amount to be paid
by the tax psyers by $4,000. coo, per an.
mum, and that the benefits of this reduc-
ton are distributed among the tax psyers
exactly in proportion 10 the amount o.
taxes they pay? Can there be any fairel
! mode of dividing the benefits of the ex-
| emption of bonds from taxation than 10
| divide II among the taxpayers in proper
ton to the amount for which they are tax
able?
Dan. Well, that is no: exactly the poin,
of view from which had looked st il. II
has looked to me very much ike the op-
! preston of the poor tax pay rs for the sake
/ of the rich bondholders.
For. Now you are returning TO point
upon which was talking with member
of your party the other day. He did no
seem to ehave mad Horatie sSsynour's
speech at We New YORK State Convent ton
] in which he shows that the bcndholders
are, as class, much poorer than the tax
payers, and that post of the national debt
is owned by the poorer classes.
Dsm. You refer TO the fact that deposits
in Savings banks. and the CAPITAL Of the in,
surance md hpnking -copepa.nss have ta>