Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1873-02-20
REFUNDING OF COTTON TAX.
Speech OF Hen. j. m. Bright, OF TEN.
nessee, tn sile House OF Represents-
dives Feb. IL ISzS.

nessee, fn she House OF Represenss-
lives, Feb. III, Is7S,
On the bill III b. No. 390I) to refund certain
taxes collected by the United States ON raw
cotton during the years 1868, 1864, 1865, 1866,
1851, and 1868 and 20 create perpetual com
Inon-school fund, and for other purposes.
CONTINUED FROM YESTERDAY
In the line Of the same principle the Su-
p-eme Court or the United States has held
that tax on the importer is tax on the
goods imported, and a stamp tax on the
cleal ance is a tax on the goods exported.
But suppose We are met with the opinion of
Chief Justice Chase in Veazie. Bank VS..
Fenno, before alluded to. This is not a
case il point. 1t only involved the consti-
nationality of the act of Congr IS of 1858.
imposing tax of ten per cent. on the cur
rency OF the Stale and national banks. he
reviews the ease Of Hylton vs., United
States g Daily and the action Of Congress
on the subject Of direct taxes, and says:
.seThis review shows that personal property,
Contracts occupations, and the like have never
been regarded by Congress as proper subjects of
taxation"
Bearing in mind that this statement is
rather historic than judicial, l reply.
1. That Congress had no occasion to t1evy
a general assessment on personal property"
by direct tax, which power was doubted
but not denied in Hylton vs.. United States,
but which was affirmed might be done by
Hamilton, Madison, Marshall, and Els
worth, who was afterwards Chief Justice,
be saving that s'the sum allotted to State
may be levied without difficulty according
to the plan used in q State for raising its
own supplies" P
2. That becauseI Congress did not st
tempt to tax under general assessment is
not evidence that Congress had not power
to do so. .. ... ....-,-., (
8. That before the cotton tax Congress
never having pretended to tax any farm
production by name, leaves Us to infer that
Congress considered the productions taxed
in the assessment on the land.
As already shown, the productions may
be reached by direct tax on al the lands
In the United States, and in this way 1t
would spread and give an even bearing on a |
the States, instead of bulking it on a few,
1t has been judicially determined that
Congress has clearly no power to exempt
any State from its due share Of the burden"
of taxation. Uoughboro VS.. Blake, 8 Wheat.
317.) 1t was never intended that the pro-
perty and labor of one State should be tax
en- to pay taxes for another. No State, as
mark Of favor, was, ike Joseph, TO wear
ga coat of many colors," nor like Benja-
min, to receive "mess" Of Government
fsvors 'sfige times as much as the Others"
But see what miserable One-Sided affair
the cotton tax was! The Government COL
lected about s64,779,6S1.47 in 1S65-66-67,
which was paid by the producers of eleven
States, the other twenty-six States paying
nothing.
But to close in on the practical point: the
Government wants money, not part of the
farmers land, nor a poll-scalp, nor the
work beast, nor cotton, nor tobacco, but it
wants money, which may be appropriated
among AL the States; for they all have
money, all have properly on which 1t may
be levied, and all have population to furnish
the standard fapportionment; allwere TO be
equal in rights, equal in privileges, equal in
obligations, and equal iG burdens.
All of these principles were violated in
the cotton tax, which was in reality land
tax, and could only be taxed under the sp-
portionment rule in an assessment with the
land, which was not done. Therefore, the
scts of Congress imposing the taxes were
void.
UNIFORMITY RULE. "a
The cotton tax cannot find sanctuary I'M
der this rule. The taxes falling under this
rule were "duties, imposts, and excises,"
which, in the imperative language Of the
Constitution, ';shal be uniform throughout
the United States" The uniformity was
to be both geographical and personal. The
same duties shall be laid in all the ports in
the estates sndITerritories throughout the
United Safes, and the same income taxes
and excuses should operate alike, Including
the District of Columbia, =" as held in Lough-
boro VS.. Blake, g Wheat. BID
The Supreme Court, in Hylton VS.. United
States, says that these are stakes on eXpen-
ses and consumption"-mArk the words
and "all taxes on expenses and consump-
ton are indirect taxes"
Adam Smith says: r.
6The duties of excise are imposed chiefly
upon goods of home produce and destined for
home cOnsumpton."-VOL. 3, $40.
McCullocb, on taxation, says Of excises
"They are charged on certain articles pro
duced within the country and intended for home
consumption. "-2O3, 24l.
The political economists, Mil, Perry,
Peto, and Say concur with them.
These authorities bring it down level to
the comprehension Of every mind, that
these ''dUties, imposts, and exciseS" were
intended to fail alone on home consUmp-
ton and home expenses.
Now Cor the cotton tax. All will agree
that the producer paid the tax, directly OF
indirectly, in the first instance, Except that
part Of the cotton which be sold before che
incumbency of the taxes,) for the cotton
was under q sor5 of inland embargo, and
the prepayment of the tax was indispen
sable to It's removal. But did the farmer
ga it back in the consumption? L know
that some fnanciers have coptended that
this sort Of tax is not lost 10 the contrib4'
tors, but it is restored 10 them in the eX
penditure of the Government MeCul loci
on taxation most happily explodes tb
fLlscy. Take bis illustration:
6cThe farmer sold as much corn or other pro
duce, as vas worth fifty dollars; he next pai
away these fifty dollars to a tax collector. An
the person who received the fifty dollars 1ro1
the tax collector now comes to the farmer an
offers them back to him, on condition OF his re
ceiving an equivalent IN corn or other produce
This is the way in which the money drawn iron
the pockets Of the public by taxation always re
yerts TO them And ii it enrich any one, II IS 90
yiOus il must do SO by making him pay twice To
the same spm Of money !'-(l3-l4)
Any one can see that the farmer is on
500 in tlRtwo transactions, aud has onl.
fifty liars in his pocket 1t would be
fruItless effort to convince the farmer Wht
raised nine bales of cotton, and gays three
or the proceeds Of three Of them 10 pay hi
cotton tax, that the money ever reverted to
his pocket, either from the Government, OF
Ga any increased price CT his repaining six
bales. But did the falmsr get restitution
of his tax by adding it TO the price Of sale
This he could not do, because he could not
force his cotton upon the consumption c
the United States. After the home marke
was supplied, more than two-thirds of hi
crop lay at the feet of the foreign cottol
broker.
The revenue powers Of our GoVernnen
were never minded to cerive revenu
from foreign consumption; indeed we hay
no power to regulate the consumption c
the citizens of foreign governments, Ou
indirect taxes look d alone to raising II
venue out of our own citizens. Then VIVA
was the predicamens Of the cotton p;oduS
ers? The Government had taken one-thlr
Of the value Of their crops to pay taxes
had abandoned them, with the remalnln
two-thirts, 10 grdpple with foreign broker.
foreign g9yerDInen s, and foreign e0nPsll
ton. They we're compelled to sell. The
p had anticipated really about the full Valli
of the crops, after paying taxes, in the pas
ment OF labor and other expenses OF pre-
duction. How deplorable their condition