Gold Hill daily news. [volume] (Gold Hill, N.T. [Nev.]) 1863-1882, 1873-08-21
TAXATION.

Growing ont Of the controversy De-
tween the Massachusetts, brewers ana
the Internal Revenue Department are
many Interesting aud suggestive re-
Elections. For Instance. there u the
query n to what course the General
Government would pursue should 9TH
err States initiate the example Of Mas
sachu.etts aud destroy the beer bust
meas. Manufacturers of fermented
liquor, In that State paid over $780,
QUO last year to the Federal Govern
ment As u tax OIL the beer and ale pro-
duced, and now the question arises
whether the Government "a or will
In any way protect the property thus
taxed, and those who have paid the
taxes. This beer question Of it-elf l.
Of comparatively small Importance ;
It Il the difficulty OF segrcgstlng Ma
tional. State aud county taxes. to
which We Invite attention. II State
has the power and the right to destroy
one Industry, as that OF brewing. OIL
which the Federal Government de-
ponds for revenue Ii has an equal
right to destroy any other Industry BY
p~rotnbi;ory laws. The right to prac-
tically ~anuihilate an industry by exor-
bitant taxes which amount to prohibit
,ion. Il even nore clear. If we once
c,nceds the principle that a State may
destroy an industry which yields the
Federal Government = revenue. it 10
easy to follow It TO Its legitimate re-
suit. For Instance. Massachusetts has
the same right to tax or prohibit any
other industry, Us to interdics the
brewing Of beer. Suppose, In the wis.
dom Of her Legislators, |. should be de-
termined TO break up the tobacco mani
uf,cture. It would be In hc- power.
this principle once conceded, 10 i'm.
pose So heavy a AK upon tobacco man
utacturci IN the State rs TO render
tina, business impossible. And this
principle applies to every Industry
from which the Federal Government
obtains u tax under the Internal Rev
enue laws. SO that IL Massachusetts, so
villa, and the principle I. correct. the
General Government can bs deprived
of all VENUE from that State BY the
action Of Massachusetts legislators.
But the results OF a recognition Of
State authority In the case OF the Mas
sachu.etts brewers. do NOT end here.
In TACT they only just begin to be nan-
ife.t. For in this federation Of States
each has cQua! right to regulate It's In
ternal concerns. and il Massachusetts,
eau deprive the Federal Government
through the ins,rumentality Of pro-
hib,,ory laws, of a portion or the
whole Of Its revenue, every other State
may do the same. The result would
plainly be to deprive the Government
Of all revenue except that from import
duties, over which t. hss supreme con-
troll. There Il, Of course, not the
slightest reason 10 believe that the
temperance legislation In Massachu-
sets, the execution of which has given
rise 10 this controversy. had In view
sny !dea Of interfering with the FEEDER
al Revenue. yet the result l. the same
as IL such Interference had been desired
or intended. II the power Of a State
10 Interfere with Federal taxation, or
.ile subjects thereof Il conceded. and
by chance n State or States should be-
come dissatisfied or refractory. IL Is
easy to ioresee that the power which is
recognized to belong to such State or
States would at onc be exercised to
currail or aboli.h all due from
the di.affec,ed localities to the FEEDER
nj Government. 1t was from = recoS-
milton Of this danger that when. during
tina war, the bonds Of the United
States were Is.ued. they were made
untaxab.e. Tho argument was, that
II I. were allowed to the State gov
ernments to levy u tax upon the secur.
tiles Of the General Government, they
might asses such tax at a rate
which would practically destroy their
availability, BY rendering their pos
session II burden Instead Of a profit.
aud by this means the OF the
Government would be crippled and a
home market for the sale Of Its bonds
be utterly destroyed. This ease Of the
Massachusetts brewers, though not
parallel. l. based upon one Of the same
great principles, viz: that no State
has any right to enact laws which will
interfere with the resources. or impair
the y OF tho Federal Govern
ment. and Will, although Insignificant
In itself, give rise to widespread dis
cuI,ion, AMI perhaps eventually to
such a reformation of the revenue
laws as will dispense with the swarws
OF Internal Revenue officers and, IN
fact. with the whole Internal Revenue
system rs now constituted. Many able
political economists advocate the idea
iha, one tax collected under n law.
By ore ST.. of officials should serve for
all forms Of government. from a
municipality upward to the Federal
Government. The cumbrousness OF
the present system. and the attendant
amount OF Federal patronage and COLI
seqnent corruption. give reason for
desiring. and questions like the one
under discussion will, In the future,
lead to a radical change In our system
Of taxation.
IirNoRt Of the death of Commodore
Nnptl.,btif ,. -. -