The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1875-10-17
Taxation and Slavery.

Union. The argument ID well put and ably
conceived. 1t adopts aud Celebrates the
advanced jurisprudeuce Of the day and
appeals to a source of justice higher even
than State Constitution-the inaliena-
BILE rights of man as set forth by the Ameri-
can Declaration of Independence. Every
man is entitled to protection at the hands
of his government-protection in life, lib
erty and property. For the purpose of re-
ceiving that protection, men organize pol
iticaf society and vest it with power
necessary to that end. If such power is
used for any other end or purpose, the act
is one of oppression instead of protection.
Instead of being principal of whom the
government Is a mere agent, the citizen
becomes a subject in whom the govern
ment claims some kind Of ownership in
stead Of being a freeman heis, to the extent
of the infused authority, slave.
In some countries, such as Russia and
Turkey, this usurpation of power, this
pretense of mastery in the government
over the subject, is ass erted even as to his
life. The death penalty is q prerogative
of the despot's caprice. In other countries,
such as Prussia, personal liberty is held
very cheap. newspaper criticism on the
government, an exercise of spiritual power
in religious matters over which govern
ment can not possibly have any control, is
enough to consign the editor or prelate to
the damp walls of a prison cell. In our own
country the trial by jury and the Habeas
Corpus have modified these things so that
life and liberty are more respected, but
very broad views have been held by State
governments as to tteir powers over prop
erty.
Now beyond doubt, the true rule in that
respect, as in both the others, is that pol
itical power is limited to the protection of
the citizen in bis rights. Taxation may
be resorted to for that purpose, but for no
other. AS was we'll said by Judge Cooley
of Michigan, and by the New York Court of
Appeals, taxation for any other purpose is
robbery. For instance, if our people are
taxed to build railroad which will not
belong to them, the money raised will not
be sacredly devoted to their protection or
interests but diverted to the enriching OF
some individual or corporation if some
person or association is vested with mon
opoly to do certain work and empowered to
make people pay more for that work than
they could have it done for otherwise, that
is tax too, though collected by the mono
polst, and the excess of sach tax above the
actual value of the work will not be applied
to the advantage or protection of the PEG.
pie, but to the sole profit of the monopolist.
This is then no tax, but q robbery not
| taxation, but plumber. 1t makes no differ
ence that there is pretense of "public
| utility" in the scheme. To the extent that
| private interests are advanced, it is misap-
plication of public funds, aud, therefore, a
robbery. The hypocrisy of the pretense
only makes the outrage the more odious.
Now, it is perfectly clear that no govern
ment has a right to tax it's people for the
benefit of an individual, whether such in
dividual be the King one of his pets.
Not only has it no such right, but it cannot
| have it. If the Constitution gave it in 30
many words, that clause would be null and
void. 1t is impossible for majority of two
thirds or of any other proportion to give
to government unlimited, arbitrary pow
er over life or over liberty. 1t is equally
impossible for them to give such power over
| TUG property OF luOsS WHO 10 not consent
| to it. An individual can not be deprived
ofhis property, without an equivalent, at the
will of any majority. If society needs his
property it may take it against his will,
| but must give him an equivalent in the
shape of protection or otherwise.
| This is clearly enunciated by the Su-
preme Court of the United States in the
| matter known as the Topeka case, The
following passage, which we find quoted in
the Report of the Property Holders Com
mittee, is very much in point:
1t must be conceded that there are private
rights in every free government beyond the
control of the State. A government which
recognized no such rights, which held the lives,
liberty and property of its citizens subject at
| all times to the absolute disposition and IN
limited control of even the most democratic
depository power, is after all but des-
potism. 1t may well be doubted, if a man is
to hold all that he is accustomed to call his