Wyandot County Republican. [volume] (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1869-1903, 1870-06-17


Great Britin. They said that du
ring the war they had paid the in
come tax willingly. because they
feared the aggressions of the French
democracy more than taxation.
They were willing to pay an income
tax to preserve their privileges and
After the war was over
they then insisted on piling all the
burdens of Government on con-
sumption, which is a tax on the
poor. They repealed the income
tax and assessed nearly all taxes
on excises and imports. They
said the true subject of taxation was
not property or income, out con
sumption. Well, what is tax on
consumption ? Why, sir, you or 1
use as much tea, coffee, and sugar
as the welthiest man in the United
States. 1t takes just as much to
satisfy our wants and of the poor
est of our citizens as the richest.
A tax on consumption, therefore,
is in its nature an unequal tax; you
cannot make it equal 1t takes a
greater porpotion of the earnings
nf tho nNnr man fn nox,
taxes for the absolute neccssaries
of life, than it does for the articles
consumed by Mr.. Astor or Mr..
Stewart.
THE INCOME TAX THE ONLY TAX ON
PROSPERITY '--
The only discrimination in our
tax laws that will reach wealthy
men, as against the poorer classes
Of people,ls the income tax. There
is no other tax on property levied
by the United States Of America
The tax on legacies and SUGGESTIONS
which was in the nature of proper
ty tax, is about to be repealed by
the agreement Of the committees ot
both Houses; and the income tax
is the only tax levied by us,
that bears npon property in any
shape or manner. All the rest oil
our taxes, both internal and exter
hal, are taxes on consumption.
Now, according to every true
theory of taxation, a large portion
OF the taxes ought to fall upon prop
erty or income derived from prop
erty. We cannot levy property
tax under our systym, because the
Constitution requires the prhperty
tax to be apportioned among th'
States according to populations
AS this would be grossly ant
manifestly unequal to the new State
and new communities, the onl,
mode in white we can reach prop
erty is by an income tax; and there
fore it is that the income tax is pai(
by comparatively few person in th'
large cities. l do not find faul
with them because they compliance
of it; but if they would Sc that
was their property and their right
and their income, that was saved b,
the operation of the war, and tha
NEST of the people who yay the tax
cs on consumption necessarily pa
nine tonths of all the taxes, tn
property. holders and wealthy peo
PIE of this country ought not t.
complain, if we deem itnecessarp t.
maintain. this tax even at five pc
cent, ikstead of, as we propose, a
three per ceut.
The whole aggregate of our take:
as I have shown you.is 1913 900, 900
dollars and We levy only 81 100000
of that upon property ,or the incom
from property. We levy nine tenth
of all our taxes upon food an
cloathing and those things whic
are consumed by the use Of teen
For propertyholders, wealthy pee
pie, those who derive large incom
from there profession or employ
mint, from there brains or intelet
to complain Of this tax, it seems t
me, is very unjust.
Here MIR. Sherman read copior
quotations from British authoritie
in support of his position in favor {
retaining the in come tax, which "
would gladly reproduce, but want {
space forbids. Mr.. Sherman the
concluded as follows ED
Mr.. President, if Congress shoul
now repeal the only tax that res
upon property, the only tax that
drawn from the income of the riC
) as contradistinguished from tt
poor; if we higgle about the ts
that is paid by the two hundred al
seventy-three thousand people WI
pay our income tax, and yet kee
upon the people the taxes upo
their sales, the special taxes upe
t their employments, and all the bu
dens that now rest upon every ar
Gle consumed by the poor, it will
sorry spectacle. An English Pa
, lament, when appealed to und
circumstances much less difficu
!, maintained for twenty years in W
) a tax approaching ten per cent, {
) incomes. After the war was ov
they tried the other policy. Th
again renewed that tax and levied
f at the rate of from one to three
: four per cent. fot nearly thirty yea
more. And now, when we are pa
ing 10000, 1000 to our pensionel