Year: 1868

whisky sells at much below the amount
Of the tax, it is clear that those who pay
the tax cannot continue in the business
and the same rule applies more or less te
other heavily taxed products.


This condition of affairs implies, first
a defective system Of imposts. High du.
ties naturally tempt to an evasion of the
law and attempts to evade the law natur.
ally result in the bribing Of its guardi.
ans. We're the duties lighter, the temp.
tation to dishonesty would be less inhucn.
tial and il is essential to my we'll regula.
ted system that its imposts should not be
so high as to tempt tax payers and off
GERS to frauds. Evasion Of any impost ii
possible; and the only way to prevent its
becoming actual is to fix the rate so low
that the gains Of evasion would not sci
off its risks. This principle, however, Is
wholly ignored in some of our most
prominent branches Of revenue.


This severity in our revenue laws is in
danger also Of producing an ultimate rev.
olution in taxation in every form. There
is something so obviously just in the prin-
ciple OF government collecting from the
people payment for its essential services
that no people can be conceived capable
Of rejecting reasonable taxation, if the
imposts are gathered with duo regard to
the self.respect Of the tax payers. But
if the people are insultcd, embarrassed
and injured in their business under M
oppressive system of collection, they will
soon learn TO acquire a disgust of taxa
ton, and in their evaporation may de-
mand extreme aud dangerous measures Of
relief. The rigor of our present laws il
utterly inconsistent with the genius OF
free institutions, and implies, on the part
of its framerg, very low estimate OF the
patriotism and honesty Of its constituents.
The system is an afFront TO the people,
and an engine Of political cxaction and
fraud.


Then, again, how important IT is that
our tax officials, both high and low, should
learn TO execute all revenue laws IN the
interest of the people. If there 10 a ques.
ton with regard to the Interpretation Of
any provisions of the law, tho people
should have the benefit of the doubt. The
contrary, however, il, We regret TO say, at
present the practice, and applications to
headquarters for redress against the un-
bearabIe and arbitrary acts Of the lower
officials. and for relief under questionable
provisions of the law seem TO find little
favor. This is clearly wrong. An officer
of the Government should be in sympa-
thy with the people, not with the lawmak
er. The great Frederick of Prussia, in
giving instructions to his judges upon
their appointment, was accustomed to say:
"If suit arises between me and one of
my subjects, aud the case is doubtful
one, yon should always decide against me- !"
This is an enlightened view Of a courts
duty, aud as revenue officer is for most
purposes both judge and jury, the rule Of
Frederick furnishes a good guide for his
acts. He is not appointed to make laws
or 10 extend them, but simply TO execute
them. Ifthere is really doubt he should.
as before said, decide with the people, leav-
ing the law.making powers to add such
further legislation as it may desire. Since
the close of our civil war, however, a
contrary spirit appears TO govern our Off
cials. IL is not necessary TO cite cases in
proof of this position, for they are within
the experience Of every merchant. But
the time has now come for change. 4
longer continuance of this arbitrary way
Of interpreting laws aud executing them
must rapidly result in making our people
restive under taxation of every kind.