Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1868-07-10

3. As portion of the public debt o
= England is in tcrmnablc annufies. to tina
extent the principal of the debt is taxed
and that whether the holders reside il
Great Britain or abroad. Leon Levi, on
of the most emmens OF English writers OF
9 finance. mentions this speciality of BIRTHS
taxation.
/. As the pay't of the interest of the deb
/. is jntc-estesfto the banks of Eng. and Ire
land. the Est india AMI the Sonth Sea
Companies. and the commissioners for the
, reduction of the debt, the effect Of putting
this tax into their hands to assess aid col
leet is nearly the same as it would be III Out
case to deduct it from the coupons.
have in my amendment. foil owed the idea
ofthc British st ,tutc aud charged the Trea-
surer with these duties.
). Schedule { prosides for payment OF
tax without deduction" In case OF
other property it is provided by the statute
that income UP to Il certain amount is not
taxed. In our case all incomes under l.,
900 are not taxed. The English limit is
somewhat less.
1t is evident that my proposition is clear
" " thin the English example. 1t should
be rcnlemhe cd that the larger portion of
the English debt is but three per cent,
while almost the whole of ours is at six per
cent. a tax of ten per cent, as in Pitt 5
time. on the English holder, would leave
! him bat two and two tentlis for interest,
while in our case it would leave four and
! four tenths-.just double.
| 2. \ proposition was made the other
! day by the gent 'eman from West Virginia
/ Mr.. HUBBARD to tax the debt one per
cent. and collect By means OF the officers
of the Internal revenue departm ut. 1t
was similar to the tax proposed in Dccem-
l l. -. p, t,n
/ taxation of State bonds under State all
thori,y. That proposition failed by vot c
OF II to 81 and as in fuller House it
would probably share the same fate. i'll
stead OF renewing l., propose the English
method. which has the advantage of ccr-
taiHi both in assessment and collection.
| 3. There is no other method of taxation
except this [ propose or the one rejected
BY the House. 1t has beeu gge.ted
many TIMES that the present bonds may by
aud by be taken up from the proceeds of
new bonds which shall be expressly made
taxable by Stat: authority. But this can
not be done. Cong e's has no authority
under the Con-titutlGn to issue such bonds
be taxed, the S.;preme Court would pro-
nonncc the tax unconstitutional.
In tau case of Van Ale, Us. The Asses
sors:f3 Wallace, 5S5, 1855, the court
says
= 1t is said Congress possesses no power
to conftr upon State authority 10 be eS-
ercised which has been exclusively dele
gated to that body by the Constitution,
and consequently that it cannot confer up
on 4 State the sovereign right of taxation,
nor Is Il State competent to receive grant
Of any such power from Congress. W.
asre. to this Bat AS it respects a sub
jcct-mattcr over which Congress and the
State my exercise Il concurrent power.
bat rom the exercise OF which Congress
by reason OF its paramount authority may
eXcl'ld, the States. there Is no doubt Con-
grc>s may withhold The exercise of that
authority AID leave the States free to act.
An example of this relation cXs ting be-
tween the Fedora! aud State Governm ants
is found in the pilot laws of the States and
the health and quarantine laws. The pow
er of taxation under the Constitution, as !,
general rule, and as has been repeatedly
recognized i'll atljudgcd cases il this court.
is concurrent power. The qualifications
Of this rule are the exclusion of the Stat es
from the taxation of the means and i'll
struments employed in the ex,rcisc OF the
functions ofthe Federal COVERING DIT"
This opinion sets AZ rest all questions of
local taxation OF United States bonds. and
, us our Democratic friends have beer. in
! he habit of complaining that ngrcs sin
eNcinptii & these bonds from taxation has
not dealt fairly by the towns and cities in
Which they are held. beg them to no,i ,e
that this opinion was not given by a Re-
| publican, nor by any Of the recent Dem.
but by Il member of the court whose Dem
ocraey has always been OF the most un.
Questionable character, Judge Nelson, OF
New York.
1t was entirely Work of supererogation
for Congress to provide that the bond:
should not be taxed by State Authority
and as the clause in the loan-law ha,
eause ed SO much discussion. it was a blum.
der to insert it. The hole effect of it was
to declare what the law was, and the re
suit would have been the same had il bee,
| left ont.
Several objections are made to this tax
alton.
l. II may be said that If tax is levict
AMI collected this year another and /:
larger one may be levied and collectc'
next year. Tue. Aud the same thin;
may be said OF every other tax on tn
list. The English tax has ranget
from seven pence to twenty tour peace it
The pound. Oars may ID the same. W,
tax the foreign and domestic holder of gu
abroad bonds live per cent. Oh his incon,
ami deduct 1t from the coupon. We have
po"s' ~ .,.N Ill.,, ','i '"c"!., nno oii! as
u, anIo w. "".uci i Va su'' y, 'pea'! ea'
,i - - .,e Soo0 so"so anu 'io"c>',
'''o ID A"'e po"e'
=. IL IS sad the foreign Government
do no. TAX thcir own dcotS; Inc state
hiehl Is entiTeiy incorrect. nave aifeau
give" ''le EhSi!sh example. Inc Govern
hieii's on 'ne COMMENT SO lar as nav