The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1876-01-20
DIRECT TAXES.

DIRECT TAXES.
Among the amendments to the Consti-
tuition Of the United States, which have
been proposed at the present session of
Congress, there is one by Mr.. Reagan, of
Texas, relating to direct taxes, in which
the people of the South are peculiarly
Interested. 1t provides that direct taxes
shall be levied upon the States and Dis
trict Of Columbia in proportion to the
amount of property owned by their citi-
zens, instead of in the ratio of their pop
ulation to that of the whole Union.
Judge Reagan's amendment proposes to
allow the States and the District of Co.
lumbia to make use of their own local
officers and machinery for collecting such
taxes, should they so determine, provided
that the government of the United States
retain the right to collect the tax itself
in any State that refuses or neglects to
pay its proportion to the general govern
ment within reasonable time after the
tax is levied. .Hi
The Washington correspondent of the
New York Tribune explains the opera
tions oil the proposed amendment to the
Constitution, and the methods of collect
ing taxes heretofore, together with the
situation of the Southern States in this
respect, before and since emancipation.
If the conclusions of this correspondent
are correct, We entertain no hope that
Congress will lift the burden of taxation
from the South by passing the proposed
amendment, OF in case that sufficient
number OF votes were obtained in Con-
gress, that the requisite number of States
will agree to change the system. 1t will
take purer and less selfish age than the
present to adjust the niceties of taxation
SO as To give Justice to an oppressed sec
ton, and the cries of political dema-
gogues do not-indicate that such an era
is before us at this time:
This amendment is intended to correct
what is considered by the Southern peo-
pie to be the grossly unjust system of
fevying direct taxes. The ability of any
State to pay taxes depends, not on its
population, but upon the amount of its
productive poperty. The present method
of apportioning direct taxes is the result
of compromise between the Represen-
tatiyes of the North and of the South in
the Constitutions! Convention. The
Representatives of the South insisted
that their slave population should be
counted in determining the number of
Representatives in Congress State
should have, while the delegates from
those States where the institution of
slavery was weak and declining objected.
Finally, it was thought fair that three
fifths of the slaves should be counted in
determining the representation of State
in Congress, provided the same proper
ton of them was also included in the
population of the State, when the basis
for levying direct taxes was to be found.
If the revenues of the Government had
been derived from direct taxes, this ar
rangement might have some of the ele-
1nents of fairness in it, but the direct
taxes were almost unknown before the
late war. Surplus revenues having given
the statesmen of that period more trou-
Bile than The problem how to raise them,
the South always had undue influence
in the National Legislature, without CIV
ing anything for it in return.
Now the tables have been turned.
Emancipation, while it has added nearly
million to the representative population
of the South, has also increased by the
same number its taxable population with
out augmenting its ability to pay taxes.
This is very strikingly illustrated in the
case of South Carolina. The value OF
property in that State in 1860 was S54S,
19S,,754, and in 1870 $2OS, LAG, ,9S9-a de-
crease of more than fifty per cent. The
free population of the State in 1860 was
301, ,214, and the number of slaves 4O2,
4O6; adding three-fifths of the latter to
the former gives 552,657, the population
on which representation in Congress OF
direct taxation would then be computed,
and South Carolina's share of any direct
tax that might have been levied would
havs been about one-6fty-eighth. In
1870 the population of the State (all free)
was 705,6O6, and its share of any direct
tax levied would be about one-ffty-
fourth. In other words, while the ability
of South Carolina to pay taxes has been
reduced more than one-half since 1860,
her lia::ility to the general government
has been actually increased.
Comparing the case of South Carolina
with tha. of Massachusetts, we find that
while the latter has but one twenty first
of the population of the Union, she has
more than one-ninth of the wealth. The
percentage of taxation on the property,
should a direct tax be levied, would
therefore be more than twice as great in
South Carolina as in Massachusetts. The
difference is not as great, when the whole
OF the South is compared with the whole
of the Nor'h, and yet the inequality of
the ts. is e5en then considerable. The
Isouthe : .',,...es had, in 1870, less than
one-tifti. = the wealth of the whole
Union, while they had moro than one
third Of the population, so that, should a