The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1877-06-06
The Cotton Tax.

EDS. CLARIoN-I have known of the at
tempt to have the cotton tax refunded, and
| know that thus far these applications to
Congress have been denied. l see, however,
that the subject may be renewed. aud |
have read an article in the Jackson Times
OF the 26th, and signed O. L. Harris.
| write to give some Information and tn
suggest some reasons upon the subject
which seem not to be known, and OF course
NAV not be considered.
lst. Mr. Harris writes that ''many receipts
have been lost or mislaid because the citi-
zens who paid the tax regarded them as OF
no value" Now, the tact Is that no receipts
we're ever given TO the citizens TO be lost or
miSlaid. | will state the routine of official
action. The shipper applied to an assessor,
who supplied printed form, which he filled
ED with the number of bales, marks and
weights GnGer oath, the calculation was
made of the Internal Revenue, and this was
delivered to the collector, who made out
what was technically called permit, cor
responding with tue assessors return, and
collected the amount OF tax. The cotton
was then trans ported to another inland
port, whence export could be made, where
the permits were delivered to the Collector
of Customs, or export aud import duties,
who granted the proper clearance passes
for tie whole cargo.
The assessors t6II-ns and collector per-
mits may not be found, but the citizens
were not allowed to keep them. and if found
tax, but would present that which would be
prima facIe an uatruth.
The producer did not In one case out of a
thousand ship his own cotton, nor does his
name appear upon any OF the records; bat
in all cases the tax was charged to him by
the merchant who bought or shipped the
cotton. The writer knew several merchants
who shipped mere than others at the same
place. Ohio produced no cotton and paid
no tax not charged to the producer.
.lRA r~r,fa 81
cotton tag collected in each State and in the
several districts in each State, much OF
which is grossly erroneous. More cotton
tax is reported as collected in the lst
District of Louisiana than any 9TH
er. think 1t should be known that this
district includes the city of New Orleans
only, in which Ii is well known that not a
Mound of cotton is produced. nor was any
tax paid that was not charged and collected
out of that city. and by far the greater
amount in other States than Louisiana. On
this account, if the tax be refunded TO the
States as credited to them, the State OF
Louisiana wottld appear 10 be entitled TO &
school fund, far exceeding that OF .othel
States. Ohio-in fact several stateS-reaiiy
paid more tax, or they produced more cot
ton.
3d. If the tax be refunded, as suggested
bv Mr.. Harris, il will operate very unjustly
uTGn those who paid the tax, because they
will bear their proportion OF the hew
tax required to pay the bonds ahe
interest upon them, and thus will have
maid the tax once and have Il
The popular object of this appropriation,
Education, should not deceive the Legisia
| tors to this obvious wrong the distribution
| to one State of what are paid by others and
retaxing those who paid the uncOnstitu
! tional tax to refund it where they will no
he Ehc hepefciaries of the National Liber-
atty.
4. IfIm may suggest the mode Of refund
| ing it would be to appoint commissioned
who should give notice tor six months o
| the time when they would be at places
named to take proof OF payment by thoss
who really paid the tax and upon satisfac.
! tory showing as In cases OF other elainas