Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-01-12


The Banner Of yesterday has a lengthy
survey of the financial situation, TO some
of The points in which we cannot give
our assent.
The Bdylner. says Et ifts-t
''The Senate has passed and sent to the
House bill reducing the taxes on thetax-
able property of the State fifty per cent,
and the House has passed and sent TO the
Senate bill making large reduction on
merchants taxes. Should these two bills
become law, the revenue willie be re-
duced not much less than $500, 600 per
annum, which would be that much added
10 the present floating debt annually, and
would be nothing more nor less than re-,
pttdiottora, the very thing that the Leg
islature has emphatically declared against
almost unanimously"
We have hitherto understood the
Banner to besardently in favor of re-
duction of the Merchants Tax. In an
article on the subject published since the
meeting of the present General Assembly,
the Banner said:
''The present Legislature is called upon
by every principle of justice and fair deal
Eng as well as by every true interest of the
Commonwealth to abrogate this odious,
this atrocious, this unheard of tax, and
we do not doubt but that it viii respond
favorably. That tax not only keeps CAPT
tai out of the State that would otherwise
come here, but it drives capital already
here away. 1t prevents our merchants
from selling goods as low as those of st.
Louis, Louisville and Cincinnati; and in
these and other ways too obvious to re-
quire mention has beyond all doubt
dwarfed the growth of all our principal
cities and made our people tributary TO
the merchant princes of theirmOre favored
rivals in other and distant States Instead
of adding to or increasing the revenue of
the State. therefore, its effect has been
directly he reverse; and its repeal, so far
from leading to making reputation prob
able, would tend, on the contrary, to
render it more and more unnecessary, I'M
desirable, improbable, and in the present
temper Of Tennessee wholly impossible. y
These sentiments of our contemporary
received our cordial approval at the time
Of their utterance, and we Nave Seen no
sufficient reason for a change of our
opinion. In an article on this subject in
our issue of Dec. Z, we said:
'There has been very great complaint
upon the part of our merchants because
Of the .eXorbitant taxes imposed upon
them by the Radical legislation of the
past few years. This complaint is in
| creased because this tax, in addition TO
its exorbitancy, is unequal in its operation,
| injurious to the merchant, destructive to
the trade of the State, and beneficial only
to the merchants of other States. "
Even if the House bill now in the-Sen-
ate, alluded TO by the Banner, should
occasion a temporary deficit in the reve-
nues of the State, it would only be ten
porary. 1t is founded upon justice and
constitutional law as recently expounded
by the Supreme Court of the United
1 OldAGo III TIT OdSC0 AAOAA ilODllNY VI "OON-
ruff s. Parker as. the Tax Collector of
Mobile, and Hinson rs. the same. On q
former occasion we made copious extracts
from those decisions fully establishing the
uncOnstitutiOnality of the merchants tax
law as it now stands. We insist, in the
language of the Banner on the previous
occasion alluded to, that the present mer-
chants tax law is "odious, ''atrocious y
that ''instead of adding to or increasing
the revenue of the State, its effect has
been directly the reverse" and that sits
repeal, so far from leading to making re-
pudiation probable, would tend to render
it more and more unnecessary, unde-
sirable and improbable.