Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1874-01-28
1Uaiphman g. Jnttrnal.
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY %, 1874.
per year. strictly in advance OF $3.50
II NOT mid Within lhrae mnnlhs
raxatlon without RepresentaiIon.

The sisters Smith, Of Glastonbury, in the
State Of wooden nutmegs, have cdectually
called public attention to the fundamental
principles Of popular government. They
have excited general discussiou-in the
dcarth Of other topics--in the newspapers.
The press is now engaged in overhauling
the foundation timbers Of our political sys.
ten, and the occasion Of this new inspoc
ton and examination Of our public structure
is the refusal Of the "sistcrs Smith" Of
Glastonbury, to pay the taxes levied by
law on their property. They declare that
taxation without representation is unjust
aud iyrannical, and they will not submit to
it. They consequently refuse to pay their
taxes, aud the law takes its course. A
couple of nice fancy COWS are taken by the
sheriff and sold to meet the little bill The
COWS are bought in by the sisters and so
the law is INDICATED and the conscienccs Of
the good ladies are satisfied. The cows paid
the taxes aud the sisters still own the COWS.
It strikes us that this is an admirable
solution Of the vexed question. The State
of Connecticut levies taxes on the property
Of its residents. In return for the taxes
imposed, the State gives to its citizens good
roads, good schools, protection against oil
forms Of lawlessncss and violence. Miss
Smith holds all her property, her houses,
lands, sheep and cows, in perfect security;
journeys back and forth on the highway
in entire safety, and educates her children,
or the children Of her sisters, in the public
schools without special charge; and for all
these advantages Of civilization and order
and comfort, her property is liable to a
small annual tax. Now if she thinks it
wrong to pay it, it is just as well that her
property, which is protected, benefited, and
improved by the State, should pay it. If
she suffers her cows to pay the tax, well
and good. The property has the advan-
tage of the protection Of law, and pays for
it. If she buys in the cows, well aud good.
She has saved her theoretical notions. kept
her cows, aud paid her taxes by indirection.
But why Miss Smith should be allowed
to vote because the State charges a certain
sum annually for the protection of her
property, aud the public improvements and
institutions which increase the value of her
property, and her own personal convenience
and comfort, is not so obviously unjust and
tyrannica as she seems to think. The
State renders her an equivalent for the
taxes it levies on her property. She is not
taxed without receiving a quid pro quo.
She is one Of an association or society,
which is organized for the better defense
and advantage Of all its members, into
whose treasury she is both morally and
legally bound to pay sum that bears pro.
portion to the amount of Property protected.
The State gives her abundant and adequate
protection and defense in all her proprie-
tary rights. Where then is the tyranny in
demanding Of her share in the common
burden Of maintaining the public safety
She gets all the benefits that her brother
Smith gets, and pays only her share. II
she thinks it completely with tyranny to
pay directly out Of her pocket, she can al
low the property to pay, and let the sheriff
drive of one or two of her cows and sci
them for the protection Of the rest. Blu
where the tyranny is, it is hard to see. L
is such principle, which taxes property
for the protection Of property; which guar
antics private and personal defense aut
security in all individual rights, agains
fraud, rapacity, force and violence tina
marks the distinction between barbarisn
and civilization. A civilized society is
combination to protect personal propert,
and rights at the common expense. Doe
Miss Smith think that civilization is a crime
But tho difficulty with our Glastonbur
sister is that she cannot vote, aud therefor
, she ought not to be taxed that tits tyrann
to tax a non-yoter. And good man
7 sensible people, in general, think that he
case is hard one and ought to be remedieG
! iRuf ibnro arr tbouaan1z of ,rc,,ts a., Al
country, who are under eighteen or twenty
one years Of age, and have by will Of thei
r deceased parents or otherwise, large PROF
: erty. Shall the estates Of minors not b
subject to taxation, because minors are nc
permitted to vote2 The State undertake
to see that such estates are fairly admins
+ tered and preserved; it guards them an
: holds them for the rightful owners, give
them all the advantages of public improve
ments, and is it tyranny and an offens
e when it leyies taxes on the estates of nor
voting minors? The principle. in bot
S cases is the same. Is it right 10 the OIL
; and wrong in the.other2 Is IL wron
only in the case Of the woman, to tax he
1 property without allowing her the rigl
of suffrage2 Miss Smith may stand in th
T. eye Of the law as a minor, so far as votin
goes, but in no other respect She hi
> sole, absolute, undisputed right in her prol
erty, towill or ALLEVIATE it in any way, and II
i law protects aud secures all her rights an
s powers in aud over her property, and
many important respects gives her niue
: higher position than minor. What rigl
. has she then to complain, if the law onl
g taxes her property, which il protects, eve
g if it does not give her the right Of suffrage
5 1t, at least, gives her an equivalent for a
i it takes from her, and this is not robbery
= tyranny, call it by what other name we wi
G We are not aware that in this COUNT
o suffrage rests at all on the taxation
d property. In fact it does not The posse
sion of property, and the payment Of tax
on it, gives no man the right to suffrag
: Thousands on thousands of men reside in III
: country, who possess immense estates, al
I. transact all business under the protectiC
d Of our laws, who are not allowed to vot
y IT. E..i;.l