Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1888-05-04
Refunding the Direct Tax.

Refunding the Direct Tax.
1t is plain that the refusal of the Democrats
in Congress to pass the bill TO refund the direct
taxes Will be pressed as an issue in the coming
elections. Ex-senator Mcdonald, Of Indiana,
recently said: OF course, think the bill is
right. How any fair-minded man can think
otherwise is more than can understand 1t is
not according to Democratic ideas to make fish
OF one and flesh of the other in corrorat!onsan any
more than Individuals All should he treated
alike, and il is easier to refund from our treas
ury the money that has already been paid
than to collect that part which has not been
paid from people in many cases already sadly
burdened." Nevertheless the Democrats of the
House, urged thereto by President who is
seeking denomination, and SO cares more for
the favor of those southern states which have
not paid their tax and oppose the bill than for
justice. defeated this righteous measure
Oregonian, April 2S
In 1868, the First Comptroller OF the
Treasury charged up to the States and
Territories the unpaid portion of the
direct tax of 1861. He was entitled to
make this charge only as to the States
which had assumed the quota Of the
tax apportioned to the States as collec-
ton districts. Most of the Northern
States had done so, receiving rebate
of fifteen per cent. for assuming to col
lect the direct taxes. The States in
instruction were provided for by late
law, which imposed the tax upon the
lands owned by individuals, and pro-
vided for the collection of the tax by
United States officers. Before the col
lection of the tax, the war was over,
the people impoverished, and Congress
suspended the collection in the South
ern States up to January, 1869. No
attempt has been made to collect, UNI
der the statutes, since 1868. When
ever a Southern State has had any
money coming to it from the United
States, the Comptroller, in allowing
the claim, has ordered it covered into
the Treasury, and has credited it on
the false charges against the State
The State of Louisiana contested the
right of the United States to seize up
on its property to pay the taxes due
from its citizens. In October, 1887
the Supreme Court of the United
States decided this question in the
case of the United States VS.. State of
Louisiana, 124 U. s., 80.
The Court held: "Nor do we
reject the unpaid portion of the d.
rect tax laid by the act of Con-
gress of August 5, 1861, which was APP
portioned to Louisiana rs constituting
any debt to the United States, by the
State, in her political and corporate
character, which can be set OF against
the demands. Its apportionment was
merely a designation of the amount
which was to be levied upon and coll
lected from the property of individu-
ais in the several States, respectively.
The provisions of the act are incon-
sistent with any theory of the obliga-
ton of the States to pay the sums lev
ied."
The charge against the Instruction
airy States was made when President
Johnson was swinging around the
circle AZ Il possible Democratic candi-
date for the Presidency. 1t was repu-
dated by Gov. Porter, of Indiana,
when he was First Comptroller under
President Hayes. His decision was
reversed by First Comptroller Law
renee in 1884, and Comptroller Dur
ham, of Kentucky, instead of sweeping
off the books this false charge held
himself bound by the act of his prede-
cessOr.
Meantime the lobby, on the scent
for jobs, conceived the scheme of re-
funding the whole tax collected to the
States. After securing fat contracts,
the agents of the States pushed the
bill for returning the tax to the States
until the recent deadlock. During
that deadlock, in response to in
quiries sent by telegraph to the Gov
ernors of many of the States asking
what amount the State agents would
receive in the event the bill to refund
the direct tax became law, replies
were received as follows: The lobby
State Agent of Iowa is to receive IS
per cent. on 1884 ,274, or, in round
numbers, 500, 600; Kansas, 10 per cent.
on $62 1850, or Sc, 236; Kentucky, per
cent. on $6O6,64l, or $3O,332; Maine
% per cent. on 1857 ,702. or $S9, 425
Maryland, $4,000 of 1871 ,299; Mas
sachusetts 25 per cent. of 500, 1874, or
$175 600; Michigan 40 per cent. on
$426, 49S, or $l7O,6OO; Minnesota 25
per cent. OH $92 ,25O, or $23, O64; Mis-
souri, Is per cent. on $647 900, or $97,-
O43; New York Is per cent on 50 ,132, :
100, or $319,Sl5; Ohio 10 per cent. on
81, 332,O25, or $l33,2O2; South Caro-
lima 35 per cent. on 1868, $40, or 1927, :
249; Nebraska so per cent. on 81 200,
or $500. The Pennsylvania agent is
to receive Is per cent. of her claim, OF
$25O,OO0.
The only argument for refunding
this tax ia that it is n war tax, and il
that is just reason for refunding il
then all other war taxes should be re.
funded, including the income taxes
imposed during the first years OF the
war. That was collected entirely from
the citizens of the loyal States. The
law was not enforced in instruction.
airy districts, and quite as strong rea
sons exist for reimbursing the war in
come tax as the direct tax.
The true solution of this matter il
for the Secretary of the Treasury to
follow the decision of the Supreme
Court and strike from his books the
false charges against the States and
Territories, which were assumed by tho
collection of the direct tax. The
Comptroller had no right to compe
the States to pay the debts OF theil
citizens, and SO the Supreme Cour
of the United States has decided
Common honesty requires the correc
ton of the books. There is no better
time to do it than now.
w. 8. BUSH.
SEATTLE, w. T., April 20, 1883.