Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1882-06-01

hold on to it, though at first many were
little afraid to take it squarely."
The Moral Guilt of Taxing the Sale
of Drinks.
Logic in the hands of the illogical is
like clutching knife by the blade and
cutting your own fingers; but the illog-
ieal ara most presumptuous in exploit
ing what they call logic. The strenuous
opposition of a class of well meaning
prohibitionists to any law to tax the SELL
ing of intoxicating drinks, because they
say that for the State to tax this traffic
is to recegize it-that is to say, to pa
trOniZe OF encourage it-and is to make
itself partner in the business of pro-
noting intemperance, and so to make
league with death and covenant with
hell" is an example of this unskillful
handling of logic. A large class of good
people with the best of motives have
fancied this an argument broad enough
to found cause upon, and to erect a
party and make a political revolution
upon.
Yet there is nothing of this argument,
and when examined in the light of rea-
son, its pretenss of logic and moral
purism is seen to be so feeble as to
shame the faculty Of reason. Some good
reasoning on this head is set forth in
the opinion of Judge Cooley, of Michi-
gan, in a case involving the same ques-
tion that exists in Ohio, of the power of
the Legislature to tax a traffic which
/ the Constitution forbids to license, and
also the other questions with regard to
the Legislatures taxing a traffic which
it has forbidden, and also whether this
conflicts with that provision of the Con-
stitution which requires that all proper
ty shall be taxed by uniform rule.
Judge Cooley is recognized as one of the
jurists in the nation. His opinion ap-
pears to include the questions raised as
to our Pend law. Extracts were printed
in the Gazette of the goth, and in these
was some sharp reasoning on the argu-
ment that it is immoral for the State to
tax that which is evil, and that by so
doing it licenses social evil, and be
comes a partner in its bad gains. 1t is
to that part of his opinion that we now
direct attention.
The argument that the State confers
a special favor on thing by taxing it
seems to Judge Cooley different view
from that which people take of taxes on
themselves. The instinct of mankind
is to escape taxes, but in the case OF the
trade in drinks that intoxicate, the pro-
hibitionists hold that taxes are special
privilege. Says Judge Cooley:
Taxes are not favors; they are bur
dens. They are necessary, it is true, to
the existence of government, but they
are not the less burdens, and are only
submitted to because of the necessity.
1t is deemed advisable to make careful
provision to preclude these burdens be
coming needlessly oppressive, but it is
conceded by all the authorities that un-
Il ueI SOIuO OAAOy w
carried to an extent that will be ruinous
to individuals. 1t would be remarka-
BILE proposition, under such circum-
stances, that thing is sanctioned and
ceuntenanced by the government when
this burden, which may prove disastrous,
i is imposed upon it, while, on the other
hand, it is frowned upon and condemn
ed when the burden is withheld. 1t is
safe to predict that if such were the
legal doctrine any citizen would prefer
to be visited with the untaXed frowns OF
the government rather than with those
testimonials of approval which are rep
resented by the demands of the taxgath-
erer.
The argument that to tax the trade
carries the reciprocal duty to protect the
trade, the Judge disposes of by the re-
mark that there is no inseparable con
nection between the two; that the State
protects the property which it exempts
from taxation, the same as other prop
erty: that, for example, the United
States have taxed many kinds of prop
erty which they have no laws to protect,
leaving this to the States; that there is
no such specific reciprocity in taxation,
as that when government taxes pecu-
liar thing, it enters into obligations to
protect that specific thing.
1t might also be remarked that if tax
atien and the duty of protection would
be to each species of property, in greater
or less degree, according to the rate OF
taxation on that specific thing, and that
the exempted property, such as church
es, school houses, cemeteries, and the
amount of personal property which is
exempt by general law, is outlawed.
Judge Cooley's treatment of the moral
: argument that to tax an evil makes the
) State partner in it. is complete ex
tinguishment. He shows plainly that
, the same order of logic would make the
! State morally a partner in all the evil
f things that it taxes, would make it &C
cesscry to the offenses on which 1t i'm
poses the penalty of fines; more thar
a this, would make those moral and be
t nevolent institutions, the public schools
= partners or accessories to the offense'
! ! of which the penal fines 30 to the schoo
!. fund. Says Judge Cooley: