The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1874-01-26
TAXATION AND REPRESENTA-
TlON.


Glastonbury, Connecticut. Either th's' OF
they have been heretofore, and still CON
Time to be in state of most blisslul igno-
rance in reference to taxation and voters.
II 10 all very true that our fOrefathers cried |
ont against taxation without representa-
ton. but that did not imply the right of
every taxpayer to vote. Far from it, or
else we fail to read history Alright. The |
claim was simply that the mother country |
had not the right to tax the colOnlsts, UNI |
less they had voice in the matter In
the United States. that principle is estab-
lshed Taxes cannot be levied without
the consent of the people, but every indi-
vidual does not vote thereon. State taxes
are levied, theoretically, by consent of the
people, but only one or two OF the ten
thousand inhabitants, or two thousand tax
PAYERS of Rutland, tor instance vote there
on. This tax, it may be said. is voted by
the representatives of the people, to whom
the people have delegated that particular
power Very well, but it illustrates the
principle, But to come to the "Smith sis
ters." Is there a state in the Union, is
there a single town in Il state that could
not furnish one or more ''Smith sisters
if that happened to be their name, and
they should offer to vote, knowing it to be
contrary to law so to do? We venture to
say that there is not a single town in the
United States that has not within its I'm
its a female who owns property, who are
liable to pay taxes thereon, arc actually
placed on the assessment rolls, and from
whom taxes are actually collected. This
has been 80 ever since the adoption of the
constitution 1t is, Also the case with mi
nor children owning property, has always
been so, and, probably, will always con-
tinuc to be so. Is there more injustice in
depriying minor child-say twenty years
and eleven months old, wanting only one
month Of the time when he may become
voter-of the right to vote on the question
of taxes, or any other question: than it is
to allow eighty men, whose taxes will
amount in the aggregate to SIXTY dollars, TO
compel forty other men to pay the taxes
to build forty thousand dollar school
house? The principles upon which taxes
are voted is to allow every male taxpayer
who is otherwise legal voter-thc same
voice and vote whether his tax would be
ten cents, ten dollars ten thousand dollars
or any other sum.
1t is true that the Smith sisters" did not
attempt to vote, but the whole cutlery has
been on this account and on no other. The
cry has been, as of old, mo taxation with
out. tnG4e to BE- sGeh &c iebf
resentation in taxation, as is claimed? Let
us see exactly what this " Smith sisters "
motto is? They did not attempt to vote
That phase of the question was tried by
Susan b. Anthony. But, after all, it re-
solves itself into the question of voting at
last. These I" Smith sisters are wealthy
maiden ladies, residing in Glastonbury.
Connecticut; owning a large and valuable
farm, well stocked, and perhaps, other per-
sonal property; the assessors, or listers as
we should call them in Vermont, assessed
their real and personal property at the sum
they deemed proper, and placed it upon the
assessment rolls, or grand list; the town,
state, etc, voted certain taxes and the due
proportion thereof was assessed on their
list; at some stage of the proceedings, no
matter when, they appealed to the town to
abate their taxes, substantially, on the
ground, as we understand it, that they had
no voice or vote in the assessment thereof
that it was taxation without representa-
ton; the town, very properly, refused to
abate the taxes because they could not do
otherwise; and the sisters refused to pay
the same. The tax collector then. as in
duty bound, ''atlachcd," or seized. some of
Their personal propcrty-it happened 10 be
cows-and advertised it for sale in payment
for the taxes. This is the matter and tbe
whole matter. 1t is nothing new, but is,
probably, occurring somewhere in the
United States every day, and nothing is
said or thought about it. Yet men. fnmil-
lar with the history of the country, and. al
so, with the assessment and collection of
taxes, consider and treat it as sometime
new. All there is of this case TO distin-
guish it from Others IS that the ''Smith sis
lers' wrote to the newspapers, and a great
hue and cry has been raised about it ; these
same newspapers to speak properly,
Their editors-being utterly ignorant Of, or
entirely ignoring the fact that this same
thing has been taking place under their
very eyes all the time, and that it is as old |
as the government itself, and perhaps, cen
turtles older
We ale not considering the wisdom. pro
priety, or justice of allowing full, free and
impartial suffrage without regard to sex. AT |
proper time and place, we may express our
views on woman suffrage" but it has
nothing to do with this case. We doubt
not that some, if not the majority, now
living, will see the day, when suffrage will
not depend on sex Now this case of the
"Smth sisters" may be taken as an in
stance OF taxation without representa-
ton pure and unadulerated As we have
said, it is nothing new it is happening
every day; and there is and can be no help
for it in republican and democratic form
Of government. Such a thing as taxation
with representation, pure and simple, can
never take place in this country. More
over, it never ought to. Taxation and re-
presentation will do very well for a cry
but in its literal sense, it would be danger
Gus. What would be its effect Simply
Lhls, that an individual paying one thous-
and dollars taxes, would have two thousand
votes for the one vote given by an In
iiyidual paying only fifty cents tax. In