Keowee courier. [volume] (Pickens Court House, S.C.) 1849-current, 1908-05-06


such an unjust discrimination?
While these products are confined to
certain SECTIONS OF country, no one or
them Is SO circumscribed as cotton.
Cotton is not and cannot be raised
uniformly. throughout the United
States, and hence as an indirect tax
1t cannot conform to the main re-
Quirement-that 1t shall be uniform
throughout the United States"
The fact is, the tax on cotton was q
direct tax. Let us see what direct
tax is defined to be. Perry, on politi-
cal economy, uses the following Ian
guage:
"A direct tax is levied on the very
persons who are themselves expected
to pay It,"
Inc fact Is, the producer did ac-
tually pay the cotton tax.
An excise is one form of direct tax,
and under this specific head the cot
ton tax properly belonged, IL it had
been legally levied. Judge Story
says:
"An excise is an inland imposition
or duty; a duty or tax laid on GER
tain articles produced or consumed
at home"
Here was an article produced and
largely consumed at home. 1t was
properly subject to an excise, IL levied
in accordance with the constitution.
But hear again the language of the
constitutions:
"All duties, imposts, and excises
shall be uniform throughout the
United States"
That is, they shall fall with impair
tiality on Maine and Texas alike.
Does tax on cotton come within the
requirements?
Again the constitution says:
''No capitation or other direct tax
shall be laid unless in proportion to
the census
BY the census of 1860 the total
population of the United States was
81 ,445,0S9, and Of the eleven cotton
States 9,103,333. The total cotton
tax amounted to $6S,O72,38S.99 OF
this amount, eleven cotton States
paid $64,7O1,352.76. Georgia paid
over $11,OOO,O0O and Maine paid
nothing. How is this for laying the
tax in conformity to the constitutions:
"In proportion to the census Of
enumeration"
Again, the language of the consti-
tuition:
mo tax or duty shall be laid on
articles exported from any State"
At the time of the collection of the
cotton taxes more than half Of the
entire crop was exported abroad. A
strict definition Of the word export"
includes shipment from one State TO
another. In this sense more than
four-fifths Of the entire crop was ex-
ported. Nothing could be clearer
than that the cotton tax was, in this
respect, violative of the constitution.
There are some who do not pre-
tend to Justify the cotton tax from a
legal or constitutional standpoint but
claim that it was q war measure and
that the country was justified in sus-
pending the constitution. While this
is the only honest contention that can
be set up, it certainly could not be
applicable to the taxes collected in
1857 and 1868, amounting to three
fourths Of the entire collections, when
peace reigned throughout the land.
AS for the taxes collected during the
war, they may have been justified by
the rule of might, but not by the rule
of right. An army may be justified
in confiscating or destroying proper
ty, as a legitimate war measure; but
that rich, proud and powerful gov
ernment will defy its own prescribed
rule Of conduct, to tax, under the
guise Of law, poor and bleeding
people, l refuse to believe.
If, blinded by prejudice and exas-
perated by the resistance that had
for so long set at naught the Federal
that which was unwarranted under
the constitution, has not the day Of
restitution come?
Perhaps few Of the original tax
payers are living to enter their
claims The descendants, in many
instances, could establish just claims
and any unclaimed amount might be
turned over to the various State
Treasurers, for use in the common
school fund.
This appeal is to the mind, after
the passions have subsided. 1t is
not made in the name of charity, nor
vet ia Il a demand but plainly and