Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1886-08-06

Of it, and he has a right to get the benefit of |
and selling the thing that he |
produces for what it really and truly is; but |
il he undertakes TO sell butter for something
that is finer than that, IL he melts 1t up and |
turns it by some continuance into an imitation
Of salad oil, he would be called a cheat who
ought to be repressed, so far as the power Of
the law-making power Of the government can
go to Tepress him.
Nobody disputes that in the abstract sup.
pose. II anybody does dispute it, then we
have this simple proposition The fact exists
over this immense republic that into every
household that does not make it's own butter,
and therefore knows what it is doing, there is
brought fraud and a cheat, and when say
"every household" 1 allow for the very small
percentage of people who eat this commodity
knowing it to be what il is. In that state OF
things, l should suppose we would all agree
that whatever constitutional power state
may have, or the United States may have
ought to be exerted 10 repress It. take it
nobody can deny II.
Then we come to the constitutional Difficult
ties presented by the senator from Kentucky
I Mr.. Beck and other gentlemen who have
presented them with great ingenuity, the sen.
ator from Texas Me- Coke in particular,
now remember, about the bill being itself
something like oleomargarine that 10 to say,
lTbuu huu uumOuB pTetenhes ueuy u.
The taxing power OF every civilized commu-
nifty from the time taxes in systematic way
began down to this day, of every state of this
Union, Of every civiiz sd country upon the
face Of the globe has always been exerted by
determinations of burdens, by selections, by
exemptions, in order to promote the general
welfare of that community rs 1t appeared to
the persons who had the power to make its
laws.
do not believe there is an instance in the
whole history Of civilization of a systematic
tax law that did not on the face OF II show
that the taxing power was exerted not merely
with an eye to getting money into the treas
ury, but also with the distinct and avowed
purpose, proper, wholesome, beneficial to the
community, of taxing by discrimination
against employments and objects which were
not 30 beneficial to the whole community az
others-some of them may be deleterious-
and by exempting, which is the same thing,
some things which were so universally for
the general benefit, as churches, and chart
ties, and schoolhouses, and so on, from taxa.
ton entirely, which involves precisely the
same principle.
The Congress of the United States by the
constitution, as every body agrees, has power
to impose customs tax 8 called duties, and il
you turn to the standing customs laws OF the
United States from the beginning OF the gov
eminent down to this day, you will fluid in
those tax laws prohibitions against the bring.
ing into this country of sundry things which
are supposed by the lawmaking power to be
deleterious to its general welfare. There is
one section Of the revised statutes of the
United States which embraces an enumera-
ton of those things.
Upon what principle does it go? 1t goes
upon the principle that the constitution has
expressed in terms that taxes, etc, are to be
imposed to pay the debts, TO provide for the
general welfare OF the United States that is,
to exert the taxing power in such way, by
such exceptions, by such prohibitions, by
such dlferentiations of burdens az shall pro
mote the general good Of the whole body of
society. That is the express purpose of the
taxing power, as much as it il the express
power to pay the debts and provide for the
common d, Tense OF the people OF the United
States.
The taxing power of the United States is
| just as extensive, just as supreme, just as H..
limitable AZ the taxing power of every state
Isl and will anybody stand up and deny that
1t Is within the just competence, in the leRis.
lative sense q am not now speaking of the
judicial sense at all, because every body gives
up that and admits that this measure is con-
stitutional in court, so far a. have heard, }
of any state to make such a provision? In
! oNoig bthNb VI Nulb uulOut repeat, QlbOrlul-
nations Of this kind, involving precisely the
same principle, have been in operation by
common and universal consent, from its
foundation down to now.
happen to have here an instance of II
which l have taken simply because my hon.
orable friend from Texas assailed the consti.
rational principle in its legislative sense of
this I'LL as making q discrimination against
one kind of manufacture and one operation
of business and in favor OF another-the stat
utes of the state Of Texas l turn TO their
tax laws and find that special and onerous
taxes are laid, just as l have said, In general,
upon great variety of operations which are
supposed, some of them to be less beneficial
to the general welfare than others. Some OF
them are supposed. l imagine, as they would
be in most states II carried on at ALL to be
rather injurious to the general welfare, and
yet not 30 injurious as to require the sover-
eign power to prohibit them altogether, but
II they are to go on at all they are to 90 on
bearing burden out Of proportion TO the
value of their operation. Texas, for instance,
lays OF 5000 year on every fortune teller
upon the solid and just principle that the
business of fortune telling is not necessary TO
the welfare Of the state.
We stand upon the express power thai
the constitution in terms reposes in Congress
to levy taxes in such way as to promote the
common welfare of the people of the United
States, and il it Is not to promote the common
welfare of the people OF the United States tC
protect 80, 900, 900 Of consumers who suppose
they are eating butter when they are cheated
into buying what is not butter, then do moi
know what the common welfare is.
had supposed that the common welfar,
even in this day was to repress 80 far as ",
had the power to do it, frauds and cheats
just as It was true at the common law in Eng
land from whence we came, that the man who
sold this very thing, il II had existed, under
false label as pretending to DO one thing wheI
it was another was guilty Of misdem eanor q
the common law, and he could be indicted
and punished for it, just as we know as be
tween private citizens that the man who IN
dertakes 10 sell his goods under a trade mari
that pretends they are the goods of somebod,
else has committed q wrong which a court o
equity will enjoin. So we have here the OF
press letter OF the constitution requiring u
to so levy our taxes as TO provide for the com
mon welfare of our people. l propose 4
levy them in this instance 80 as to provide 70
the common welfare Of the fifty million o
sixty million people who every day land d
not know but that am the victim of II nov
that have to take my meals at hotel ar
given what is supposed to be butter and wha
they ask for az butter when Il Is not that a
all aud suppose it to be providing for tn
common welfare Of the people Of the Unite
States when l guard the most universal an,
the most fundamental of its industries an,
the best OF its people against being made tn
victims and sufferers by the fraud that Is com
mitted upon the consumer.
Mr.. Butler-May ask the senator IL ths
might not have been obviated by the adoptio
, OF the amendment Of the senator from Ter
nessee requiring all these manufactures 10 B
branded
Mr.. Edmunds-FAr from il, only here 1
the District of Columbia. Il might protec