Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1868-12-29
THE FINANCES.
Taxing the Eonds=A -Peppery. Letter
from Hen. Butler.

8ar. - .tsoa-f Ae..- Duttef.srrar r. sff
| The Nattoaat Inte1igencer of th,
Esd inst. publishes the following ex
tract from letter from Gem But
| Ter .qDs aseitaaF5as dr. 81 H.is q
WAsHlsercS, Dec. 10, 1ses.-My
Dear Sir: / am always happy To
welcome just, manly and consider.
ate criticisms upon my public aets.
Yours are so mingled with kindness
and consideration that were shame
less to do otherwise Let ma as
sure you, however, that you are dis
cussing 4 subjecs-fnanee-which
lyou do not, and / do, understand
to some degree one upon which
| you do not even know the views
hold. iventure this assertion be-
cause you say. I" Uncle Sam will
never tax the interest on his bonds.
That is precisely what he does do,
and ever has done since the rebel
lion, He has always taxed the in
come on the bonds, and / know OF
no other income from a bond but
the interest, Do you? That was
at first taxed at one and a half
| per cent. when we were sell
| ing the bonds; afterward raised
to five per "a cent. When we
got through selling them we more
than trebled the amount of tax.
Yet no man or paper lisped a word
that this2iwas Reputation or dis
honest. And why? First, because
it was neither; secondly and mainly,
because, in fact, we only taxed the
conscience of the holder of the
bond. e., we taxed only the in
come which the conscience of the
holder compelled him to swear he
had when he made his return to
the assessor. l saw, therefore, that
the good and conscientious alone
paid any tax on the income derived
from bonds. / saw, too, that the
number of those was getting less
and less. l found from the returns
that a just revenue from the bonds
would be in 1864 and 1865 say ST.
200, 900; that at ] per cent. we got
only SIS, 900, and in 1865 and 1866,
when we should have had, say 81
100000, we got only S133,00O.
That is only one holder in ten of in
come was returned when the tax
was Ii per cent. When fAe tax was
raised to five per cent. on in
come put the calculation somewhat
thus If J per cent. will make nine
men in ten make false return of in
come on their books, what will a
five per cent. do? You can cipher
it out by the "rule of three at your
leisure 1 propose to make the in
come tax on the bonds ten per cent.
and why? Because they paid no
tax, State or municipal, and / thought
that taxation should be equalized.
The howl of reputation, dishOn-
esty, swindling was raised at once,
and wherefore? / had only pro
posed to double the present income
tax on the bonds. Congress had
before trebled it, and not a word
was said against the right or pro
priety of so doing? Again, resort
ing to the rule of three, if doub-
ling the tax is dishonesty, repudia-
ton and swindling, what crime was
trebling the same tax? But when
I proposed doubling the income tax
| only, how the rascals howled repu-
| diation Yet never word when
Congress tre6led it. What, then,
was the reaSonl Because the ras-
calls did not care copper for any
income tax which only taxed the
Conscience of the holder OF chs
bond. They laughed at tbs
net which only caught gudge-
ons, but | determined not t.
be cheated, and therefore proposed
to have my income collected by the
Treasurer by Withholding it from
the coupon when he was called upoI
to pay the interest on the bond
That made everybody pay equally
none would escape then. How tn
rascals shrieked and yelled in ag
onv about reputation and dishon
esty! Then the Sam Wards ant
gold gamblers were in travail for
candidate against me. Then Dan
was put on the course. Then Haw
lev and Curtis wrote. Then Xii
patrick and every other scoundre
GRATED throughout the district, AMI
the Advertiser, Springfield Repub
licdn and New York Times lavishly
launched leaden libels against my
self and constituents. But in vain
: The income tax, honestly collected
and it could not have been evaded
would have given upward of Sl3r
100000, where We do not &c
SI,O6QO00 now. How many sucl
candidates, newspapers, orators ant
praters, as we had interfering i
the affairs of the Fifth District, d,
you think the difference 81, 900,
0OO) would and did buy to oppos
. nv scheme of taxation? How muc
calumny and abuse from half-starve
Bohemians would that sum bring t
cry out reputation, and praise tn
sacredness of obligations, of whic
; not one of their own they yer
| o,-or lrrnup 70 f1lfil
A DUEL was fought in Washington 0
( the 25th inst between an officer of ii
regular army on duty there and who
: name could not be ascertained, and Phi
= Forney, SON of Hon. j. W. FOrney, ii
| -. L In. rniaAnIa of trrnnfu naca