Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1872-06-05
THE TARIFF.
Speech Of Hon. John M. Bright,
OF TENNESSEE,
In the House OF Representatives, May
3, IS72s
ICONCLUDED.I


Suppose tfat Congress should levy a tax OF ten
cents per pound on cotton and sugar produced in
the United States, every man Of sense would
know where it was intended to fall, and that it
would break down these productions and drive
the laborers from the cotton and sugar fields in
the Guf States. Suppose that Congress should
levy tax OF twenty cents per pound on tobacco
grown IN the United states, every one would
know that It was intended 20 fall on the natural
tobacco region in the Middle and Western States
and that tile tobacco industry in these States
would be greatly distressed e not DESTROYED
suppose that Congress should levy a tax of five
dollars per yard Oh all broadcloths one dollar
per yard on al other wooden goods ten cents per
YARD on ali calicOes, cotton dOmestics laces and
t t. manufactured in the United States, and
twenty cents per pound on ali the clippings,
thrumbs, and shreds which are swept up, like
the stems Of a tobacc0-hOuse, to make shOddy
goods, every enc would know that it was aimed
AZ the manufactures of the Northern States
81 melody, then, would sing upon different
~ aanut Amid their deeaying tenements the
manufacturers would derive poor comfort by
being informed that the law was uniform
throughout the United States, They would be
lnsulted by the detestable hypocrisy of the in
former. The letter Of the law might cover the
United States but the tax would adhere to them.
Suppose you tell them that the consumers nav
the tax. Yes, if they viii buy; but they will re-
Nive the old continental spinning-wheel and
hAnd-loom in every family, sndarray themselves
in hOme manufactures, before they win buy the
taX-burdened articles. The congressional action
In every one of these supposed cases would be a
clear violation OF the Constitution. The illus
tratiOn Of the tobacco zone was but a statement
of the substantial facts. The idea of a uniform
distribution of the burden of a tobacco tax
through the United States isan absurdity The
variety of agricultural productions in the differ
ent sections are so distinct that it is impossible
TO tax them either under the apportiOnment or
uniformity rule. The trainers of the Colstitu-
ton framed 1t in the face Of this variety
The supreme Court of the United States, in
Hylton VS.. The United States, g Crsnch, felt the
pressure ofthis embarrassing question, and clear
ly intimated that the productions Of land were 50
nearly allied to it that they should be considered
as land by a constructive merger with it, and
then the lands throughout the United States
might be taxed directly under the apportionment
principle. This is, perhaps, the most Just and
rational solution Of the subject.
The court say in that case:
sit is not necessary TO determine whether the
tax on the produce Of the land be a direct or an
indirect tax. Perhaps the immediate product of
land, in its original and crude state ought to be
considered a part Of the land itself. When the
produce is converted into a manufacture it as
Eumes new shape" etc.
Hence, having taxed the land as capital per
haps with the production growing on it, there
should not be cumulative tax on the prOdue
tons when severed from the land. II, however
such tax should be reSOrted to, it should be appl
ed TO all the productions Cd all the lands through
out the United States to bring it within the spirit
OF the uniformity rule. But it is presumed that
such q tax would be impraeticable through the
multiplicity OF its details. But let us apply stub
born facts in demonstration Of the inequality and
injUs tiCe of the tobacco tax.
tabular statement compiled from the census
returns shows 262, ,3Il pounds to be the GUAM
tity of tobacco grown in the United States; and
from the report of the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue SIS, 57s us is shown to be the amount
of the tax received from tobacco in all its con-
sumptiVe FORMS exclusive of what is exported,
for the fiscal year ended June 80, 1871, in order
to give the amount Of tax which each State
would be required to pay if the tax had been
distributed according to a uniform assessment
upon all the tobacco grown in the country. For
lra n I will
tive seven States from each of the divisions Of
the United States to which have alluded as
zones OF belts:
Pounds Td5uHiforBa-