New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1888-04-07
RFFyNDING THE DIRECT TAX.

The prolonged ilibustering in the House OF
Representatives against the bill TO refund the
direct tax of 1861 attracts far more attention
than the measure itself, which seems TO be OF
little popular interest. Yet bill proposing to
distribute S17,OOO,OOO among twenty-nine
States and Territories cannot be deemed an
unimportant measure This sum was collected
under the act of Congress Of August 5, 1851,
which authorized a direct tax Of $4,000 OOO
to be levied annually upon the real estate OF
the country. This was one OF the early e1-
pedients to raise money for the War, and was
discarded after one year Under the Consul
tuition, the tax was, of course, apportioned ac-
cording to population, and seeding States had
their quota marked against them as well as
loyal States The loyal States generally as
sumed their share and paid 1t directly TO the
Government, being allowed deduction OF 10
per cent for doing so. Where this was not
done, as in the case Of Southern States, inc
United States Government proceeded against
individuals. when it was able to do so, sold
property, and applied the proceeds toward the
States quota. This was notably the case In
South Carolina. Where States that did not
paw their share OF the tax have since preferred
claims against the United States, the Federal
Government has claimed the amount due from
the State under this tax as an offset.
The matter has rested in this shape ever
since the War, TO the perplexity OF genera
ton of Treasury officials. Hero was tax
which only portion of the people had PAID.
No one proposed to enforce the collection OF
the balance still DUE and yet it must remain on
the Treasury books as debt. What was more
to the point was that the States and Territories
which paid the tax were in the position OF nav
ing chcerfully assumed their share of pubic
burden which other States had shirkcd These
latter States were Alabama, Arkansas, FLORIDA,
Georgia. Louisiana Mississippi, North Carolina
South Carolina Tennessee, Texas and Nir-
ginia, Colorado, then Territory, the justice
of whose assessment is stoutly disputed, is put
down few hundred dollars in the Govern
ments debt. with Utah and Washington for
larger amounts The total sum still due the
Government, without interest, is S2,6fO3l4.
Tho sum collected, and which it is proposed
shall be returned to the States also without IN
terest. is S17.350685, of which New York
State was credited, including the ID per cent
allowed for collection, with S2,6O3,9lo. Inc
bill proposes to cancel the debt of States which
have not paid up, and to refund to States whlch
have done so, endeavoring as nearly as pos
sble to restore the condition of affairs as 1t
was before the tax.
This seems a most equitable arrangement.
Such opposition as there was in the Senate came
from three classes few Southern Senators,
who did not want to see so large an appropna-
ton from which the Southern States were to
derive little benefit; Western Senators, repre-
senting States that were Territories at the time
the tax was collected, and whose share as re-
S,pients is smaller than their proportion as tax
PAYERS and others who thought that where the
tax was collected from individuals, the Federal
Government should undertake 10 find the prop
er claimants instead of turning that duty over
to the State Governments, who might not per-
form it properly. Still there were only SIX
negative votes in the Senate. In the House II
is understood to be supported by majority OF
both parties. But the number of flIbustcrs IS
sufficiently large, led by Mr.. Breckinrdge Of
Arkansas, to prolong the struggle to disgrace
full length. Mr.. Brecknridge's excuse is that
it is a Republican scheme TO reduce the surplus
so that it will not be safe to pass the Mills bill
Many of his followers arc willing to pass it,
however, il the cotton tax shall be refunded at
the same time. This amounted to sos 100000
Consistency is not Democratic jewel.