Dodgeville chronicle. [volume] (Dodgeville, Wis.) 1862-current, 1868-04-24
Democratic P<IBcfples---A Ola.
1OEue.

III
After mature reflection upon his recent
conversation with well-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 Republicanp party, that the
majority Should rule, the majority being
white mep, secured the complete suprem
acy Of the white race beyond contingency.
| 1t followed that the party cry bite men
shall rule America" was, therefore, a cover
| for the real intent that the majority should
not rule, ard 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 di-
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:
| Foreigner. was recently informed by
an intelligent Democrat that a leading ii
nancial doctrine of the party is the equal
taxation of all kinds Of property.
| Democrat. Yes; that refers to the Govern
ment bonds, which are unjustly exempt
| from taxation, while all other kinds OF
property are taxed.
| For. And do you regard the debt OF the
| nation "a on a mar with all other kinds of
property? l:.a..-s -, .s... ....,.,,..... ~.
DEM Certainly. Why not? ''. A'~ '
| For Because, if that were true, then the
more the nation were in debt the richer 1t
would be. ..,, .,f..at s.t.f =. -,
Dem. No! Because this is debt due
from one class Of the people to another
from the taxpayers to the bondholders.
Of course such debt does not add to the
total wealth of the country.
| For. IF it is debt due from the tax
payers to the bonaholders, then whatever
increases the rate of interest upon it or
the amount of the principal, adds so much
to what the taxpayers have to pay? Isl e0
Dem. Yes, l suppose SO. 'ta.H o.
! 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 a
government will lend or not, as the rate OF
interest suits him. Ii the government
offers five per cent. and he would lend at
five, then, If the government proposes to
tax the loan one per cent, he will only
lend at six. Has not every proposition in
PRODUCED 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? fte tes gt5.,Yg z4s4y tss. q
| Dem. Yes, l admit that on all new loans,
if it were hnown in advance that the bonds
were going to be taxed, an additional rate of
interest would be charged, equal to the tax
| imposed. ...t-..t.t -.-5......
Fer. And this additional rate of interest
must be paid by the taxpayers; SO that if
it were proposed to tax all the interest
paying part of the national debt, viz /,
$4,000, 100000 one per cent, exactly $780,
100000 more interest would have to be
collected from the taxpayers to pay it
| with? How would this benefit the tax
payers?
| Dem. All, but you are supposing that
the tax is levied before the loans are
made, so that the creditors of the Gov
eminent have notice Of it, We are pro-
posing to tax the bonds already Issued
Such a tax we think would fall on the
ondholder-would it not? frI
For. In the first instance it certainly
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 questions? @ " f'" -'
Dem. Yes. The Constitution as con-
strued by the Supreme Court -, fe-..s:.
For. But that court has at least three
times decided that no State or other local
government within the limits OF the United
States had the power under the Constitu-
ton to tax the bonds Of the United States.
DEM Indeed have read the Consti-
ton through, and found nothing whatever
on the point. ,...sr.... 5sv, are a.. ..st.f.;
For Did you not find two clauses, one
authorizing Congress to borrow money
on the credit of the United States" and
the other declaring the National Constitu-
ton, and the laws made in pursuance
thereof, to be supreme over any law OF the
States2 q ~5.l4] aaq85w ~ Il ,s4
Dem. Yes. But Ifsil to see how that
prevents a State from taxing national
bend. -Jr H.4" '.'3'
, For If State can tax it one per cent.
on the interest, can they not tax it six per
cent? And is not q tax of six per cent.
annually equal to o tax of 100 per cent.
on the principal, and SO absolute repudia-
ton? And would not that make the pow
er of the nation to borrow completely de-
pendent upon, and subordinate to, the
i power Of State to tax? lis fsaa JTsutG
a. Dem. Well, if the object to be attained
is right, there must be some way to accom-
4 plish it Certainly there is no justice in
taxing the property of taxpayers and
4 leaving the property of bondholders un-
taxed. t.a,
For. Why not? Have we not seen that
i 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 taxpayers by 100000 600 per an
mum, and that the benefits of this reduc-
ton are distributed among the Taxpayers
exactly in proportion to the amount of
A taxes they pay? Can there be any fairer
mode of dividing the benefits of the ex-
emption OF bonds from taxation than to
divide it among the taxpayers in proper
ton to the amount for which they are tax.
able .eial cl1 su sdsu L.AsNtp ~ 3i1E
! Dem. Well, that is not exactly the point
of view from which had locked at IT, 1t
' has looked to me very much like the op-
preston of the poor tax payers for the sake
of the rich bondholders. aci> hisow gs5ns
For. Now you are returning to point
upon which was talking with a member
Of your party the other day. He did not
seem to have read HOratio Seymour's