Litchfield enquirer., 1874-02-05
TAXATION NO TYRANNY" |"

the plucky refusal of the Misses Smith of Glastonbury to pay a tax they were de- nied any vote in laying, and the levy by thetown collector upon their cattle to en- force its collection, has occasioned fre- quent reference to that famous old tract of Doctor Sam. Johnson, issued ninety nine years ago, and entitled, Taxation no Tyranny ',%a Glancing oyer that memora- ble pronunciamento of conservatism, we strike on the same old arguments recently revived in the conservative journals of Connecticut, enforced, however, by pow CT of vituperation.which they have vainly striven to equal.
 Dr. Johnson lays it down as a funda- mental principle that, ''the supreme pow CT of every community has the right of re- quiring from all it's subjects such contri- buttons as are necessary to the public safe ty or the public prosperity" This he says, ''was considered by all mankind as comprising the primary and essential con- dition of all political society, tilI it became disputed by those Zeolots .of Anarchy, who have denied to the parliament of Britain the right of taxing the American colonies" He sneers at the proposition the American congress had extracted "from the fanciful Montesquieu, that, in a free state every man being free agent ought to be concerned in his own govern ment.'" | That free man is governed by himself, or by laws to which he has consented is a position of mighty sound; but every man l that utters it, with whatoever confidence, and every man that hears it, with what ever acquiescence, if consent be suppos- ed to imply the power of refusal feels it I to be false. The business of the public must be done by delegation. The choice of delegates is made by select number, and those who are not electors stand idle and helpless spectators of the common veal, wholly unconcerned in the government of themselves
 Here it will be seen the sturdy advocate of Protection hits the inconsistency of the old system then in vogue not only in Eng land but in America. The argument has no force here now. Every adult male has his vote. Only women are excluded.
 Further on we encounter that familiar old assertion that common interest en- sures those who are not represented from oppression by those that are represented ::
 " It is urged that the Amerlcans have not the same security, and that a British legislator may wanton with their proper ty; yet if it be true, that their wealth be our wealth, and that their ruin will be our ruin, the parliament has the same interest in attending to them, as to any other part of the nation. The reason why we place any confidence ill our representatives IS, that they must share in the good or evil which their counsels shall produce. Their share is indeed commonly consequential and remote; but it is not often possible that any immediate advantage can be extended to such numbers as may prevail against it. We are therefore as secure against inten- tional deprivations of government as hu- man wisdom can make us, and upon this ! security the Americans may venture to re- pose.
 This is precisely what the Glastonbury officials reply to the Misses Smith. Yet what was true in Dr. Johnson's time, when only property-holders had the suffrage, is conspicuously untrue in Glastonbury to- day. A very large proportion of the voters of that town pay no taxes and therefore have no such common interest with the Misses Smith as might lead them to favor an economical administration of town | affairs.
 The memorable words i'll which the great earl of Chatham denounced Taxation without Representation were once as fa- miliar to every American as the state ments of our own great Declaration Americans" said he, :" are the sons not the bastards of England. As subjects they are entitled to the common right of representation and cannot be bound to pay taxes without their consent"
 The editors who exhort women to pay taxes laid in violation of their rights, in all meekness and quietness, and not to bother innocent tax collectors, should look back ,now and then, at the meek and quiet ways of their ancestors with the col lectors of the old Stamp taxes
 The Old Doctor has his answer to New Haven, Bridgeport and other large towns who, with the women property holders of Connecticut are denied any just represen- tation:
 Our nation is represented in parliament a consist witt. order and despatch, chosen by persons so differently qualified in diff ferent places, that the mode of choice seems to be, for the most part formed by chance, and settled by custom. Of individ- uals far the greater part have no vote, and of the voters few have any personal knowl- edge of him to whom they entrust their liberty and fortune. Yet this representation has the whole effect expected or desired; that of spread ing so wide the care of general interest, and the participation of public counsels, that the advantage or corruption of par ticular men can seldom operate with much injury to the public.
 For this reason many populous and op- ulent towns neither enjoy nor desire par ticular representatives; they are included in the general scheme of public admins tfatlon, ana cannot suffer but with the rest of the empire. la ar
 The remark that the borough represen- tation of the unreformed British House of Commons as it existed in Johnson's tune, seemed to be the result of chance and custom, applies admirably to our present Connecticut House of Representatives. So too his statement that ''many popu- lous and opulent towns neither enjoy nor desire particular representatives" is exact ly what we constantly see in anti-reform papers about the feeling of Bridgeport, for instance, regarding their want of suit ables representation in the legislature. Half century afterwards, the terrible popular settlements that preceded the