Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-19

Mr.. Adam Smith classes tax on land, q
tax on rents, and tax ON raw farm pro-
ducsions as being in effect one and the
same tax, (vol. 8, PIP. 264, 272, 277.) He
| argued that all taxes are derived from
''rents, wages and labor" Hence q tax on
| the rents Is in the nature of 1.-THE on the
| production, and tax on the production Is
| in effect a tax on. the land as well as the Ia /.
| Dor and expense combined within the pro-
duction. a land tax Is supposed to be paid
1 out of the production, and a tax on the pro-
ductiOn must take part of the yield of the
land. As evidence Of this, as every man of
| observation must known, the land may be
| taxed to death in the production.
While it has been argued with great force
that cotton is an Harticie" which should be
| eomprehended under general assessment
of personal estate" for direct taxation, yet
do not take my stand on this position.
But / shall contend that tax On cotton, in
| its crude state, was land tax in effect, not
only SO as shown by Adam Smith, but in
the sense of the American Constitution; and
| if land tax, it is agreed on all hands that
it would have been the subject of direct
the land, with en- assessment of other farm
productions in the value of other lands
producing them, and to be thus apportioned
throughout the United States. Such was
clearly the view of Mr.. Madison. He said:
sit is represented to be oppressive that the
States which have slaves and make tobacco
should pay taxes on those for Federal wants
when other States which have them not would
escape But doesthe Constitution on your table
admit of this?"
"On the contrary, there is proportion to be
laid on each State according to its population.
If one article in any State should be deficient it
will be laid on another article.'
Mr. Marshall said
"Cannot Congress regulate taxes so Is to be
equal on all parts of the community? Where Is
the absurdity of having thirteen different re-
venues? VIII they clash with or iBsure each
other? If not, why cannot Congress have thirteen
distinct laws and impose the taxes on the general
objects Of taxation in each State so that all per-
sons In society shall pay equally as they ought2'
But TO still further strengthen the posi-
ton that tax on the raw production ought
to be considered as part Of the land, for the
purpose OF direct taxation, l rely upon the
opinion of Justice Paterson in the case of
Hylton vs.. United States, g Dali, lily
As this case has been relied upon as anita
gonistic to our view, remark that the
court only judicially decided that the act of
1874, imposing tax on each carriage for
conveyance, ETC., was tax on consump-
ton and fell under the uniformity rule. It
is true that Justice Chase expressed an
obiter opinion, saying:
'T am inclined to think that the direct taxes
contemplated by the Constitution are only two,
namely, a capitation or poIl-tax" y
"and tax on land"
gu dOUbf VI afhar 10 bxy
ment OF personal property within the United
States is Included within the term direct tax"
1t viii be seen that he expressed only an
opinion from Judicial speculation, whether
a general assessment of personal property
was the subject of a direct tax. But JUS
tiee Patterson, who was a member Of the
Convention which formed the Constitution,
in the same case, spoke directly to the prin-
cipie involved in the cotton tax. He said:
cit Is not necessary to determine whether
tax on the produce Of land be direct or in,li-
rect tax. Perhaps the immediate product of the
land, in its original or crude state, ought to be
considered part Of the land"
So the court did not decide whether a
tax On the produce of land be a direct or
indirect tax; but the drift of the opinion
was that it ought to be considered part of
the land itself.
But to hug the issue little closer pro-
pose 20 show that land tax does not mean
simply tax on the glebe or soil in the sense
OF the Constitution and the practice of our
Government, II the trainers Of the Con-
sIitution intended to provide for only two
direct taxes, q eapitation and a land tax,
why did they not write i: 'snO capitation''
or land tax shall be laid, instead Of "other
direct tax shall be laid" and thus have
saved the judiciary from the agony Of con-
struction and posterity from the infection
of ruinous discriminatioIs? They surely
did not intend to use the terms 'iother Gi-
rect tax" as the synonym of land tax, aud
then to restrict that to the glebe. Our
Government has not regarded it in such a
sense. Congress has lsid five direct taxes
by assessment and apportionment, by acts
Of 179S, 1913, 1875, 1916, and 1851. The
subjects of taxation were the lands, i'm
proVements, dwelling houses, and slaves,
except the act Of 1861 dropped slaves from
The list. ....- -. -.
Chief Justice Chase, in Veazie Bank vs..
Fenno, 8 Wal, 543, says, commenting on
tnese acts: 188l=
Congress, after 179S, regarded slaves for pur-
poses of taxation as realty.p
" Under the act of 1913 slaves were assessed at
fifty cents on each; under other acts according
to valuation by assessOrs." ~
vas persons, slaves were proper ubjects of cap
itation tax; as property they were by the laws Of
some, IL not the most of the States classed as
real property, descendi BILE to heirs. Under the
first view they would be subject to the tax of
l79S as capitatiOn tax; under the latter they
would be subject to taxation as realty"
Then the conclusion is inevitable that if
the slave was considered q part of realty for
purposes OF taxation, with how much great
er prop1ety should raw productions be con-
sidered parG of the land which gave it ex-
istenee? Then for taxing purposes a tax
on the production would be tax on the
land.
~ [To BE Continued