Green-Mountain freeman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1844-1884, 1883-04-11
An Artful DOdger.

The Watchmans comments upon biz
late bull against the revenue law seem tc
have furnished Mr.. Tinkham with material
for "cud," and after three or four weeks
of Illuminating he "bobs up serenely" with
reioinder The Waterman noticed his
review of the law ouly with reference tc
the railways because in that particular
alone there seemed to be point or definite
ness in his structures
Which is the way the IEatchman opens
on us in last weeks issue. concerning our
remarks on its criticism of our article on
the new revenue law. If the writer
would give little more Illuminating" to
his "ouds" on some subjects where he
sometimes seems to 'bite off more than
he can chaw,' the result might be more
satisfactory. He further remarks:
In the illustration given by the Watch.
man to show the absurdity of our contem.
porary's argument against the method OF
taxation applied to the railways he deftly
shifts the conditions and then complacently
shows how easy is the refutation. 1T
will be noticed says the ingenuou,
commentator, that the Watchnaan doe,
not deny the injustice of the law, but
supports it with the most logical ana
conclusive argument that other laws also
work injustics." The writer should per.
haps be pitied rather than blamed for this
wretched captrap. He condemrs tn,
revenue law for its alleged injustice. NJ
one has claimed that the law is perfect.
Now, to briefly reply to this we will
say: 1t is difficult to see how we shifted
the conditions as we printed the Watch
nuns article entire and verbatim. The
Wdtchn,an cnaracterizes our remark which
it quotes above as "wretched claptrap, j"
by which, we suppose, is meant design
to deceive. Now in the first article which
we received, the only clause which
implies its justice is Each aims to do
justice to the peoples while it says,
There seems to be no greater injustice to
the railroad than TO the farmer" 9Th,
revenue law no more than its elder
brother, is free from faults" and that y
has failed to convine his readers that the
revenue act exceeds in inequtabeness
the listing acts" etc. We fail to see any
captrap in remark which has such
reasons to back it.
In the last article the writer gets so far
as to say, "as we have said before, we
believe the principle which the law
endeavors to embody is right" What the
law endeauored to embody we cannot tell.
What it does embody is an arbitrary,
direct tax upon certain persons and kinds
of property without appraisal and regald d.
less of value for no means are even sug
gested for ascertaining its value which
other property is not subject to. Thu
principle on which the listing law il
founded is, that all of every mans prop
erty shall be set in the list, and on that lisl
taxes shall be equally assessed. The
principle of the revenue law is that
property under its provisions has no
attempt made to ascertain its value, but
as said before an arbitrary direct tax laid
upon it. Can the Waterman discern no
difference in kind-only one degree in
this. And if the principle be sound and
Just, why may not its provisions be
extended to embrace any other class
which legislature strong in any certain
element might elect to thus distinguish
Finally, we must discover any intention OF
what the Watchmqn styles "tlippant and
carping criticism" and suggest, hat
calling names is not argument. We arr
in earnest 10 the matter, and desire t
preserve involate the constitution whict
our fathers left us, and live up to its spiri
e,ud ti... tho. 10 su~nr way 20 sooar
this than to hold all laws enacted unde
the provisions of that constitution up t
the light of public inspection and careful
dispassionate consideration.