Year: 1868

To Congress was delegated the power to
lay and collect duties, taxes and excuses
but pray what has this legislation TO do
with such coll ction IN regarda6 men who
deal in tax paid articles, aud who, conse-
quently, have no business with the collector
but TO pay their license Having done this,
are they TO be treated as criminals if they
refuse to submit to tyrannical, inquisitorial
and insulting legislation, which is wholly
outside the Constitution No power was
ever delegated to Congress TO authorize
spies to interfere in mans private bust
ness, except upon a warrant issued upon
two aflidavits. Any search under this or
any other law without a warrant is uncon-
stitutiOnal.


As well might the State of New York
pass law that every Merchant should
Keep stockbooks, showing fron whom they
received their goods, and to whom they de-
! livered them, for the benefit Of the police,
so that they might catch the receivers OF
stolen goods.


Again, the Constitution says that all tax
es and excises shall be uniform throughout
the United States. This law imposes a tax
of one per cent. on the sales of one class of
merchants and not on others the tax of so
much gallon or barrel or pound is added
to the price of the. article taxed, and is
finally paid by the consumer, and is thus
uniform tax. But this tax on sales can
not well be added to the price, and it was
so intended it should not be ; and as it tax
es one class Of merchants more than another
it is emnently class legislation, not uniform,
and consequently unconstitutional.


Again, this law says that no one can buy
over twenty gallons Of spirits from any one
not regularly established in the liquor busi-
ness. We understand perfectly the object
of this for il the dealer cannot buy the
holder cannot sell. But supposed that the
holder was an innocent dry goods merchant
who, 10 secure a debt out West, had receiv-
ed thousand barrels of whiskey (which
many did few yaars ego, and would do
again now,) and that he could get two dol
lars gallon for the same at private sale, If
such were legal, but could only get an offer
of one dollar aud a half at auction (where
this law says he must sell it or go to prison,)
less the charges, then the difference would
be from about s25, coo. Has Congress the
right to legiSlate away the rights aud mon
ey ofour citizens thus' No The right to
dispose of ones property as best one can is
inalienable, all the legislation of Con greSs
to the contrary notwithstanding.


Mla. ridiculous of all, our grave and wise
Legislators try TO give by law the meaning
to words. This they had better leave TO the
academicians, as they have scarcely shown
themselves competent to the task.


They have defined such words as "deal
ers, rectifers, compounders, proof spirits"
ETC., in a sense utterly opposed to the uni
versally received meaning, as well as to
their technal significance. They make war
not only on our rights and property, but on
our very language.


The only sensible project for law was
prescribed by the late Thaddeus Stevens,
which, in few sections, imposed the col
lection Of the tax on spirits at the distillery,
leaving trade free from embarrassment, and
fixing pains and penalties 10 clesr simple
manner, while the existing law is so COM
plicated and confused that it offers every
effort for its own enforcement.