Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1871-02-01
LIMITATION OF TAXATION.

LLMITA TON OF TAXATION.
To the Editor of the Journal:
1t is often amusing to see what a big cheese
some editors will make of pint of milk, and
how wise they feel over the cheese they make
We have seen great many leaders by
this class Of editors, so wondrous wise, that
they resemble some sermons which have
heard, compounded of equal parts of rant,
cant, foam, and nothing. seldom read the
Argus, not because it has not hundred "Is"
or because it is not profound, but because
some how do not get much for the time I
spend. 1t always seems to me get the worst
more than the pay. l, however, occasionally,
when have nothing else to do, look it over.
l was in that predcament day, and the first
words which met the eye was Limitation of
Taxation" and reading on l found it was a
homily upon the evils Of taxation, and a con-
graduating of itself, and the people, that at
last the ball which threatened to run over
every body was stopped by the vote of thin
House the other day, 76 to 4, barely more
than quorum, after an able discussion by
Mr.. Cram on the constitutional department,
and Mr.. Pike on the tree department, all on
one side, forbidding the people of Hallowell
to tax themselves to aid in building saw
MILL The Argus says:
"As the House contains some of the ablest
men of both parties in the State, we hail this
record as evidence that the question involved
has received thoughtful consideration and
that there is a resolute determination to bring
our legislation back to sound principles.
Now suppose that question is dead for
ever! That hereafter no dog will dare to wag
his tail in favor of letting the people do what
they please with their own; that the people of
Maine will in the future fold their arms and
sit in idleness and listlessness, over undevel-
oped millions of wealth, because enc gentle
| man in the Legislature of Maine, in 1871,
| read from the constitution of Maine that
private property shall not be taken for public
uses without just compensation, and another
uttered wall over the destruction of our
| forests.
The same gentlemen, and others in the
Legislature, seem anxious to obtain the opin-
| ion Of the Judges of the Supreme Court,
whether towns and cities have right to man.
| age their own affairs in their own way. l say
"seem anxious" just as if, some of them at
least, do not knoc what the Judges will say.
Just as if the legal gentlemen in Augusta did
hundreds of thousands, just what they were
about.
But the Argus says:
To take his 1.-THE citizsn's] property from
him, except for legitimate purposes, such only
| as give right to the power of taxation, is sim
pie robbery, under whatever pretext it may
be cloaked.
And what are the legitimate purposes fol-
which the citizens property may be taken by
taxation? 1t is certainly not to build and run
| saw mills, grist mills, cotton and wooden fac.
tories, nor anything of the kind.
Why not? If the inhabitants of town wish
| to tax themselves to build saw mill, why is
it any more robbery for them to do SO than to
build a railroad? know very well what the
stereotyped answer is. That railroad is a
| public benefit, and the saw mill is not. Is it
so? The only possible difference bewteen them
| is, more people use the railroad than the saw
mill. One is the property of private parties
| as much as the otheA The owners of the
railroad will operate when they choose, and
| so will the owners of the saw mill. The own
| ers of the railroad cannot run it in such
manner as to injurc the public, neither can
the owners of the saw mill. The owners of
the railroad advertise to carry every body and
their freight, and hence are liable in damages
to the party injured if they do not; and should
the owners of the saw mill advertise that they
would saw everybody's logs, and in conse-
quence of that advertisement logs were hauled
to their mill and then they did not fulfil their
promises to the public they would be liable in
damages.
| But why tax men without their consent to
support schools, make roads, erect public
buildings, any more than to build saw mills
or railroads. Simply, the Argus would say,
because the public good requires that we have
schools, roads, court houses, Jails, town
houses, bridges and other public works. Pub
lie interest also requires that we have rail-
roads and saw mills. Are not the people of a
town as well qualified to decide for them
selves the necessity of a saw mill as of a
town house? What difference in principle
between raising money by taxation to build a
saw mill, and exempting the mill from taxa
ton after it is built? If the constitution re-
r.srtp hat to- Io Il AL