Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1885-01-21

luxury which poveiS!
bear an equal tax with that which wealth
consumes? Why lay the eight cents tax
on the tobacco which the laboring classes
use, and the same upon the tobacco used
by the millionaire, and which costs five
and oppressive, and should be abolished
entirely, because it disoriminates in faver
of the rich and against the poor.
! But there is another reason for the re-
peal of these taxes which has not been
mentioned. 1t is this:
/ The trainers of the Constitution knew
that the subjects of taxation must be dis
tributed between the Federal Government
and the States. The States are denied the
power to lay customs duties. That has
been given exclusively to the Federal Gov
ernment. The tax ON land and on the per-
son (together constituting what by judicial
construction is held to be the 'fdirect taxes"
referred to in the Constitution, and the
excise and other taxes on employments,
occupations, income, and the like are COM
mon subjects of taxation for both govern
ments. In practice, through all our histo-
ry, our financial policy has been to leave to
the States the domain of direct and inter-
nal taxation and confine the Federal power
to customs duties, which are exclusively
its own.
Let the Federal Government take off its
|
to the States, ard large revenues would
be thence derived from their treasures, to
the relief Of the people from direct taxes ON
property. When the Federal Government
tion, which are common to both Govern
ments, it operates to enlarge the sphere of
Federal taxation and to contract that of
the States. 1t does more: by thus enlarg-
ing its own revenues and decreasing those
of the States respectively it expands more
readily its functions where money is the
means of their exercise, and dwarfs those
of the States divested of power, because
too stinted in their revenues to exercise it.
Nothing could and does tend more to the
Capitalization of power in this Government
at the expense of the States than the con-
tinuation of this internal-revenue system
of taxation.
For example: By this system the Federal
Government collects at eight cents pound
on tobacco and by its tax on cigars over
s3,OO0,00O in Virginia. Repeal the tax,
and Virginia, by tax of one cent on
tobacco, could raise a revenue of over
$400, 600 every year for the education of its
iIpeopis and for other State purposes, 1t
cannot do SO now, for it iss ousted of the
power by the exclusive action of Congress.
On broad grounds of sound constitu-
tional policy, therefore, and looking to the
equilibrium of powers between this Gov
ernment and the States, insist these taxes
should be repealed. Money is the root of
power, and by enlarging the means by
which this Government can raise it, and
contracting in the same degree the means
of the STATES, you will steadily strip the
States of their authority and centralize all
power in this Government.
|
reference to spirits used in manufactures,
that is, for the benefit of the manufacturing
class of tho country. The gentleman from
Louisville (Mr. Willis) has great interest
there which has appealed to this Govern
ment for years to have the tax on spirits
used in the manufacture of drugs repealed
entirely. This bill proposes to do it. And
that is sound policy.
Mr.. Willis: And we want it taken off also
as to fruit brandies.
L Mr. Tucker: Yes; and that the tax shall
be remitted also as to the fruit brandies.
Here are the products of the soil in which
the farmer is interested, the product Of to-
bacco, the product Of apples and peaches,
and so on; and they only are seized by this
Government, these products of agriculture,
and crushed by this heavy internal-revenue
taxation This bill would give great relief
to these agricultural products Of the farm
ing classes. Itrelieves from taxation, then,
only agricultural products which are sub
.ject to it. We protect manufactures by a
system, against which my friend from Tex
as (Nfr. Mills) is as much opposed as am,
by heavy duties. Congress ought TO lend
some aid to the farmer, but instead of do
ing so, with one hand you crush him by
keeping this heavy internal-revsnue taxa
ton upon the products of his fields, and
with the other you oppress him by high
protective duties on all that he consumes.
You strike blow at him through his pro-
duction and through his consumption.
appeal to all gentlemen on, all sides of
the House to favor the passage Of this bill.
But gentlemen say if you repeal the in
ternalrevenue taxes you will have to raise
the custom duties. In my judgment moth
ing is more fallacious.
The logical framework of protective
tariff is that which makes duties SO high as
to prohibit importation of foreign goods.
But if importation be prohibited no reve-
nue. accrues. Lessen the duties and pro-
lection decreases, as revenue on increased
importation increases. The present tariff
on many articles is so high as to protect
the domestic article by almost absolute
prohibition of the importation of the for
eign article. This is the case with blan-
kets, hats, and wool, and hundreds of other
articles.
Repeal the internal revenue system and
Congress will be compelled to abandon the
prohibitory rates of duties, to adjust them
to the revenue standard; and they will then
be high enough to raise all the revenue you
need, to give full encouragement to the in
dustries of the country, and make the
people more prosperous under state of
things more natural and less artificial
when capital will have fair profits, laborers
full Hages. and the interests of the con-