The States and Union. [volume] (Ashland, Ohio) 1868-1872, 1869-01-20

to 8 5000, anhu Radlcallsm
continues it's rule, if possible, the
State may be even worse served.
We are decidedly against the in-
crease. i;
TAKING the Bonds-A Peppery Let
ter Fl ON Ben. Butler,
From the National Intelligencer, Dec. 23.l
The following is a letter from Cen
real Butler on The finances:
WASHINGTON, Dec. 10, 1853.
Ny DEAR SIR: I am always hap
py to welcome just, manly and consi=
derate criticisms upon my public
acts. Yours are so mingled with
kindness and consideration that / were
shameless TO do otherwise. Let me
assure YOU however, that you r dis
GUESSING q subject-Gnance-whieh
YOU do not, and I do, understand to
some degree ; one upon which you do
not even know the views / hold. i
venture this assertion because you
say, Uncle Sam will never tax the
interest on his bonds 4" That is Pre-
cjss'y ,ohat he does, and erer has don
snee fhe rebellion. He has always tax
ed the income on the bonds, and |
know of no other income fronts bono
but the interest. Do-you? Tha
was at first taxed at ono and a hal
per cent. when we were selling the
bonds; afterward raised to five pei
cent. When we got through selling
them we more than trebledSthe amounl
of tax. Yet no man or paper lispeo,
a word that this was Reputation o.
dishonest And why? First, be-
cause it WAC neither; secondly and
mainly, because, in fact, we only tax
ed the conscience of the holder of the
bond 9. we taxed only the iucome
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 con
cientious alone paid any tax on the
income derived from bonds. ] saw.
TOO, that the number of those was get
ting less and less. found from the
returns that a just revenue from the
bonds would lie in 1864 and 1868
say $780, 900; that at II per cent.
We got only $4,000, and in 1865 and
1866, when. We should have had, SAY
'SI,T00, 600 we got only S133,C0).
That is only one holder IN ten of in
come was returned when the tax
was II per cent, When the
ak was raised to 5 per cent. on in
ome I put the calculation somewhat
thus: If l! per cent. will make nine
men in ten make false return CT in
come on their books, what will a .
per cent. tax do? You can cipher it
out by the ''rule of three" at your
leisure, 1 proposeAto make the In
come tax on the bonds 10 per cent,
and why? Because they paid no tax,
State or municipal, and I thought Il a
taxation should be equalized. The
howL.of reputation. dishonesty, swim
ding was raised at once, and where
fore? had only proposed to double
the present income tax on the bonds.
Congress had before treble it and not
a word was said against the right or
proprietv of SO doing Again, resort:
ting to the "rulc of three" if doubling
the tax is dishonesty, reputation and
swindling, what crime was trebllng
the SANG tax? But when proposed
doubling the income tax only, how the
rascals howled Reputation Yet
a word when Congress tye6hd it.
What, then, was the reason Because
the rascals did not care 4 copper tor
any incorcs lax which only taxed the
conscience OF the holder of the bond.
They laughed at the net which oniy,
caught gudgeons, but I determined
not to be cheated, and therefore pro
posed to have my income collected By
the Treasurer by Withholding it from
the coupon when he was called upon
to pay the interest on til bond. That
made every body pay equally; none
would escape then. How the rascals
shrieked and yelled in agony about
population and dishonesty! Then
the Sam. Wards and gold gamblers
were in travail for a candidate against
me-. Then Dana was put on the
course. Then Hawley and Curtis
wrote. Then Fitzpatrick and every
other scoundrel grated throughout the
district, and the Advertiser, Spring
field Republican and New York Times
Iavishly launched leaden Ebcls against
myself and constituents. But in v in.
The income tax, honestly collected,
and it could not have been evaded,
would have given upward of s13,001,-
'00e, where we do not get $4,000 d
now. How many such candidates,
newspapers, orators and praters, as
we had Interfering in the affairs of the
Fifth District, do you the difference
1000, 00) would and did buy to
oppose my scheme oftaxation? How
much calumny and abuse from half
starved Bohemians would that sum
bring to cry out reputation, and
praise the sacredness Of obligations,
of which not one of their own they
were eyer known to fulfill.
Sacrifice Of Government Property