Washington sentinel., 1900-02-24


Taxation without representation
The attempt OF the Republicans
in Congress, at the instigation oi
the protected" trusts, to tax the
impoverished and starving inhab-
itants OF Porto Rico recalls how a
similar attempt on the part OF the
British Parliament not a century
and a half ago to tax America
caused this land to resound with
the cries: mo taxation without
representation" and Taxation
without representation is robbery"
Then were lighted the fires of
patriotism which led to the Revo-
lutionarY War, to the Declaration
OF Independence, and to the birth
OF these United States. OF course,
resistance on the part OF the Porto
Ricans to any scheme of taxation
which Congress may impose, how
ever cruel and unjust, would be
futile and is not to be apprehended.
Mr.. Mckinley, with his legions,
would speedily accomplish in
Porto Rico what George III. failed
20 do in America. Otherwise the
parallel between che two cases is
sufficiently striking. The Ameri-
can Colonies were not represented
in the Parliament Of Great Britain;
Porto Rico is not represented in
the Congress of the United States.
The FIRST attempt of the Bri ish
Parliament to tax the American
colonists was in 1905, when the
Stamp act was passed. 1t was in
his speech in the Virginia House
of Burgesses, in opposition to this
measure, that Patrick Henry made
use ,ot the memorable words:
Caesar had his Brutus, Charles |.
his Cromwell, George Ill" and
when cries Of "treasonl" rose on
all sides of the House. contin ued
and completed his sentence
George Ill. may profit by their
example. Ii this be treason, make
the most of it"
1t was in opposition to the same
Stamp act, and in justification of
the resistance which its enforce
ment met with in America, that
the elder Pitt. not vet made Earl
OF Chatham, delivered one OF his
most memorable speeches in the
House OF Commons on January
IA, 1906,
On account OF the opposition it
met with at home and abroad the
Stamp act was repealed March,
1866. but distinction being sought
to be drawn between the right OF
Parliament TO impose internal
taxes, such as a stamp duty, and
external taxes, such as a duty on
imports, its repeal was followed by
the passage OF the Townshend
measures, as they were called, i'm
posing duties upon tea, paper,
glass, paints and other articles
imported into the colonies. In
1870 these duties were repealed,
with the exception of the duty on
tea, which was retained, as Lord
North declared, less for the sake
of any revenue it might yield,
which was trlfing, than "as mark
of the supremacy Of Parliament,
and the efficient declaration of its
right to govern the colonies" AS
such our Iorefathers resisted 1t as
il it were the most oppressive OF
burdens. It was not the amount
or the burden of the tax, however,
which reused their resistance. AT
that time tea had not come into
general use--it was the luxury Of
the few, not the necessity. BY an
arrangem ent with the British East
India Company the tea imported
in British vessels vas offered with
the duty paid at a lower price than
they could be smuggled from Hol-
land. But our loreiathers would
have none Of il. In their eyes il
was a badge of slavery, represent
ing the detestable doctrine OF "tax
alton without representation. "
Mass meetings Of the people re-
quired the consignees Of the tea to
refuse the cargoes and resign their
trusts. AT Philadelphia the tea
ships were met and turned back to
England before they came within
the jurisdiction OF the custom
house. AT Charleston the tea was
landed, but as there was no one &c
receive It or pay the duty il was
thrown into damp cellar to spoil