Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-20

0b0 ebCy lOkSC0 W WIN ADOCluulty lEVu1
foreign government which controlled tbs
ably Che commerce OF the wmldt IA TIL
the meaning Of the unifofm operation Of
our revenue laws on all our citizens?
But let US pursue the trail of the cotton
tax and see where it vii end First the raw
production goes from the producer to the
manufacturer, and from the manufacturer
to the merchant, who Distributes it. fsf con-
| Sumption. Then how stands the ease?
! Two thirds or more or our tax burden
crops, passed by our home manufacturers
into the hands of BEisish and other foreign
manufacturer were worked up in foreign
mills and borne by foreign commerce to the
| four quarters of the globe for tue worlds
consumption. Let the living man answer
the question how the cotton tax could be
uniform in its operation on all the citizens
of the United States when not oae-third Of
the crop is sold, manufactured, and con-
sumed in the United States, and two. thirds
are sold, manufactured, and consumed in
foreign countries. Was 1t uniformi q. con-
sumption when only one-third was consum-
ed at home and two-thirds abroad? Was
| it uniform in its operation on two great In
dustries when the home manufacturer could
force the refunding of any tax which he
may have paid by the protection which the
Gov. rnment gave him by duties on foreign
goods, while the producer was not only
without protection, but had to bear the
burden of the etax2 Was It uniform to
give the manufacturing industry drawback
on exported cotton manufactures and to al
low none to the producer on his exported
| raw materiaIa Was it uniforE TO single
out of the long list of agricultural produc-
lions in our country raw cotton, aid levy on
It tax of three cents per pound, and let
the others go tax free, except, perhaps, .
tax Of one-haf cent per pound ON sugar
made from the sugar cane?
Asan illustration of the shocking inc
quality, / give the amounts taken from the
tabular statements of agr cultural produc-
tions in the report of Commission Wells,
1869, (see Appendix No. 1)--total annual
value So ,2S2, $50, 900; annual value OF cot
ton $303, $50, 600, being only about one
tenth of the value of our agricultural pro-
| auctions, and about one-fourteenth OF all
the great leading industr ;es of the country.
| But was it uniform throughout the United
States to impose this tax, when it was
known that it would fall on narrow sig
gag belt in eleven States, and it would fol-
low the cotton production, as fire would
the stubble, when it could not operate, nor
was there any equivalenttsx inthe twenty
six other States? Congress could as easily
have enacted the uniformity of the climates,
| the uniformity of the soils, and the uni
formity of agricultural productions, as the
uniformity Of the cotton tax. All, it was
bread to one and stone to another; one
4 I'll, al in tho dnSdrf fhn 9TH
er was Isaac in his patrimony.
% If Congress had framed the law SO as to
impose a tax on cotton grown south OF
thirty-sixth parallel of latitude in the United
States, every one would say that the law
was unconstitutional. Congress DID that
! thing In design and effect, if not in word.
The mere verbiage of the law should not
furnish subterfuge for the abuse OF one
of the most carefully guarded powers of the
Government. And it is hoped that any
advocate of the law will stand upon q
| higher platform than mere verbal sophis-
try. But it may be asked If Congress may
not single ont and tax any staple farm pro-
ductioD, under the uniformity rule, if the
terms Of the law are uniform? ! answer,
no. Assuming, for the sake Of The argu.
ment, that tax on crude staple produc;
ton is not 10 effect tax on the land,
as before argued, then to bring it within
the reason of the uniformity rule, 1t must
fall on the consumption. It is intended
that the producer shall advance the tax TO
| the Government in the first instance, and
i then receive it back from the public in the
| sale of the article. The tax must be uni
| form both in its rate and its operation. By
! being uniform in its operation do moi
maintain The absurd position that all con
sumers should be required to pay the same
| amount of tax, making the poor pay a:
| much as the rich. But by being uniform
in operation mean that it must operate
on the consumption SO that the producer
can throw the burden of the tax from him.
self upon the public. If be cannot so do
| it is plain the tax would be individual and
not public, not equal in operation on him
and the public, and could not possibly fall
within the reason of the rule; and falling
! outside of the reason, it would be falling
outside of the rule Itself. The incidence o.
the tax will determine infallibly to which
| rule 1t belongs. If It fall on the individual
| it cannot be uniform tax on consumption
in the sense of the Constitution.
To illustrate, Congress imposed grea
number of internal taxes, intending the tax
payer to indemnify himself in the con-
| sumption of the article by the puolic. The
taxes on coal, leather, wool, lumber, whis
k, agricultural implements, home manu-
features, ETC., were all taxes on expenses
| and consumption; all had q home demand
a home consumption, and home protec-
| ton BY custom duties, the consumer being
compelled to pay the tax, because there
were no, undertaking articles In the mar
ket. Hence we find the coal miners, manu-
facturers of leather, wool iron, whisky, etc.
notwithstanding the tax made large proht;
| and fortunes out of the national consump
ton, while bankruptcy was the general fat
of the cotton producer. Because the tar
on the enumerated articles fell on the ma
tionaI consumption, it did not follow thai
the cotton tax fell in the same way. Or
the contrary, as have already shown, it wal
impossible for two. thirds of the cotton tar
to fall on home consumption, as the cotton
was sold 10 foreign countries, and it was
also true that the producer could not in
| dennify himself against the tax out OF the
consumption of that part sold in the United
States. -a .. :.
Every one who knows anything about II
knows that the producer cannot arbitrarily
fix the price of bis cotton. As will prove
in another connection, the price OF cotton
is fixed at Liverpool, by which the Ameri
can market is graduated. The foreign pur
chaser and the home purchaser enter tbs
market at the same tune, The foreign pur'
chaser, being twofold the larger purchaser
took the lead in the price as it was fixed al
Liverpool, and he paid that Eprice, less ex
penses of transportation and exchange, in
dependent of any AK. The home pur
chaser never rose above the foreign price
So that if the Government had not inter
yened, the producer would have receives
the full price of the cotton from the foreigI
purchaser, as well as the same price iron
the home purchaser. As it Was, tie Ia
fell on the producer and not on the con
sumption. I know that an ingenious eHor
has been made to mix the cotton tax up Il
a sort of hocuspocus tumble with other il
ternal taxes, and sscribe to them all al
identity of classification under the unifor
nifty rule. The strategy is not new. Gov
ernments always advance their disputes
powers under blind. .-... -.
It was never intended by the Constitu
ton that the great staple productions of tn
! country, which furnished the basis OF ii
: export trade and gave life to its commerce
=. such as cotton, corn, wheat, etc, in the
/ cruoe stste--should be the objects Of taxi
ton under the uniformity rule. So to COZ
! tend would be to argue that the countr
would consume everything it produced