The Fairfield herald. [volume] (Winnsboro, S.C.) 1849-1876, 1871-04-19
= -.-t>r-----s
80, rnv Double Tax.

The following communica ton ap-
peared inttlle Columbia Phpnix, Of
Tuesday. 1t is in response to Mr..
Wbittemorc's communication which
was published in tho Courier:
Mr. EVttor The subject of taxation
is soresone with the property hold
ers of the State ~.
!. Because we have no repres cnta
tion in the Government that imposes
that tax,s,
3. Because the amount cxtorted
from usis enormously disproportiopate
to the dctnal necessities Of the Stutc.
3. Because the amount wrung from
us is SO great that wo arc not only
unable to acquire wealth, but are rot
able even to meet our necessary ex-
pcnscs from year to year.
4. Because the cnormity of tho
amount exacted from us is concealed
from tho world by All artificial system
Of valuation of property: by which
from fifty to three hundred per cent.
is added to the actual market value
5. Because tho money so cxtortcd
is not expended for our benefit, but
results in costly gwe-gaws at tho State
House, splendid cquipagcs sportcd by
Office holders, and tho mushroom
grown opulcnco of those through
whose hands the money passes.
All this VIC have endured patiently
endured as no people before havs
endured in Republican Government
But our masters now call OH us to pay
t.nniiSS Su,uG enormous tax iwico in the
bamo year.
Is it surprising that wo begin to
grow desperate
Wo arc told that tho double tax is
merely the result Of change Of time
made for our benefit and convenience.
We are frank to confess that We can
not believe that such motive would
have the slightest weight with our
law-eivers. At9any rate, we dosire
no such benefits at their hands.
sucl. was the motive, instead of
desire of fspccdy plundcr, why didno
the Legislature enact that no tax
should be required of us in March,
1872, but that the same might bc
paid in November, 1879? This
would have changed the time without
doubling tho tax, and have produced
one tax each year. The reply to this
Is, J suppose, that the tax paid in
March this year was "nly to cover
expenditures to March 1872, and
hence there would be no provision
for the six months prior to November,
1872. We answer, proper economy
would enable the tax already paid to
meet all expenses to November, 1872:
and that were tho Government in our
hands, this amount would suffice for
tho expenses of three years. But ad
init that tho taxes already paid this
year will only suffice for the rcr:o!
ending March, 1872, does it not then
follow that the period from November
1871 to March 1872, is twice provi.
ded for by the additional tax rcuur-
cd in November, 1871! Bearing in
mind that still another tax Is reouir
cd in November, 1872, can any one,
(evon Mr.. Whittemorc) have the
elIrontcry to deny that period of
six months is twice provided for
1t our legislators had intended to
change the time Of payment to q moro
convenient time, instead of providing
an extra fund for plundcr do they
ak us to believe that they had so
little sense rs to not know that their
object would have boon attained by
requiring a half tax to bo paid IN
March, 1872, and then whole tax
in November 1872 ? let Mr.. White
more try and sec if he can get out of
this result. The expenses of govern
ment are already provided for to
March, 1872 from that time to No~
vember, 1872, is ono half, u year
provide for this ono-half, and No
Vcmber, 1872, is reached.
Conclnsion-If the powers that DO
expect us to acquicscc, let them so
modify the present programme that
only onc-hulf of tho tax proposed be
collected, and that the timo of pay
ing be,March 1872, instead Of Noycm.
ber, 1871. Thon let the usual tax
be required in November, 1872, and
each Subsequent year in tho same
month. We will then in two and
one. half years have paid two and ono
half taxes, and November will be
attained as the regular timo br tho
collection of taxes.
You,.Mr. Editor, can attest that
this is written by moderate, law
abiding CITIZEN.