The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1871-01-28
Mr.. J0hnAton's Speech on the Inter.
nal Revenue System.

We give elsewhere some OF the DEBATE IN
the United States Senate on Thursday.
The following will give a better idea of
Senator Johnston's line of remark. After
making the comparison elsewhere referred
to between the taxes paid by Massachusetts
and those paid by Virginia, Mr.. Johnston
said
These are some of the Objectionable mo-
uey portions of the internal revenue sys-
tenn. These things, indeed, embarrass
business and trouble the people with what
all people dislike most-high taxes. But
its most dangerous features are the ten
dency to decentralization !; to weaken the
respect and regard of the people for the
Government to make even good citizens
habitual violators of the law; to enlarge
the already too great powers of the Gen
eral Government q; to swell Executive pa-
| tronage to practically destroy the rights
of the States; to narrow and limit the jul
risdiction, powers, and.1ights, and impair
the value and efficiency of State Courts to
| extend the jurisdiction OF the United States
Courts to subjects never contemplated by
the Constitution to give marshals, collec-
tors, assessors, commissioners, and such
petty officers almost unlimited power over
the persons and property Of the people.
Il
nations has shown it-that men called
honest, and who are honest in other re-
spects, yet consider all excise laws rs fair
| subjects of evasion. The people do not
think it wrong to smugge and defraud the
revenue. An English author in speaking
| of this says:
"It "a high rate of duty, excise or Gus
| toni creates contraband trade, thereby
creates crime, causes an undue national eX-
pendture in efforts to repress, detect, and
punish it and, more than that, it creates
pie who treat otfenses against the revenue
with sympathy, espouse the cause, and en-
dcavor to redress the wrongs of the Of
| fender"
Mr.. President, have said that the sys-
| tenn tended practically to destroy the rights
of the States. And when / say that, /
know that many on this floor think am
speaking of what does not exist and ought
not to exist, and the mention of which
ought to be suppressed, which they would
trample out i'll haste--a fire that was
destroy them and their property. State
rights are wholly associated in their
minds with slavery and secession, and
apart from these two words has no
existence to them. They look upon
State rights as the stalking-horse from
| behind which these two monsters
fought. Nevertheless, State rights, both
under fair and proper Interpretation of
the Constitution, and, in fact, still live
that is, the rights Of the State are both con-
stitutional rights, and are to he preserved
in order that the form of our Government
may not be destroyed; and they are rights
that exist in themselves, outside of any
mere provision of the Constitution, and are
valuable in themselves, because through
them laws can be best administered and in
dividual rights best protected.
| In forming our Government, it was rightly
considered that whatever public functions
could be best performed by the General
Government should be entrusted to it;
whatever could be best done by the States
| should he done by them. The States were
(many Of them) small in population and in
| territory, and incapable OF selt-pl election.
If each State had undertaken to regulate
commerce, to collect customs duties, to
make war, to treat with foreign nations, to
| coin money, it is easy to see thata bad state
Of things would have existed. Therefore
| they agreed that these things should
| be confded to q single Government, which
should represent them all; that it alone
should speak to foreign nations, it alone
| should coin money, it alone should regulate
commerce, that it alone should have the
great power Of peace and war. And these
| things were done because il was supposed
| that in that way the common defence would
| be best secured, the common welfare best
! provided for, and for no other reason. 1t
was magnificent mission; the powers
were great and noble. But there were other
| things just as important upon which the well
| fare anu happiness and freedom of the people
as much depended, and to do these things
remained the duty of each State. They
were to administer domestic law, to settle
the private rights of citizens and provide
competent tribunals for the purpose TO
protect property and regulate its descent
and transfer; to punish crime to educate
the people. And these things were re-
served to the States because the States
could do them better than the General Gov
ernment and hence say that the rights
of the State are not merely to be maintained
because the Constitution gives them, but
because it is the best for the people.
All experience and all reason teach that
individual liberty and personal rights nre
not secure under any central government
having a large territory, with its arms
reaching in every direction long distance,
but vet coming back to the head. The fur
ther you remove the people from the Gov
ernment the less protection can they have
under it, and the greater room is there for
oppression. The cry of an oppressed citi-
zen cannot be heard at Washington from
Oregon or Texas. If he is wronged he cam
not get here to have his wrongs redressed.
Witness what the Roman proconSuls and
Turkish pashas have done. Put in power
| in distant province, thousands of miles
| away from the central power, and what re-
| straint was there upon them? None; nor
is there much in this country upon the mar
| shals and other officers of the United
States. A charge in the bands Of one of
these men against citizen in the remote
part Of the country, especially the South, is
| looked upon with the same mysterious
dread that attended the lions mouth in
Venice. The army of the United States is
at the control of a deputy collector or asses
sor, who, dressed in 4 little brief authority,
and being generally very ignorant and not
usually having anything in common with
the people among whom he lives, is ut
terly regardless Of human rights. I was
judge once, and on one occasion man
was brought before me on habeas corpus.
The return of the jailor, in whose
custody he was, stated In substance that
| in uniform who gave no name that he was
lodged in Jail with the order to keep him
until the officer came back; and that no
charge, either verbal or written, was made,
and no written order of commitment. This
was in November, 1869, and as tar as I have
heard the man in uniform never went
back, I ofcourse discharged the prisoner;
but where is he to get redress?
In my State, although the law provides
expressly for holding United States courts
at several points in the State, the judge has
never held any term west OF Richmond
4 s;ooo fbo 1ryor ord II Ia mora fhYu four