Year: 1871

To the Editors of the Union and American:


When we come to put into practical


shape the policy that is forced upon us by


State needs and State honor-when we


come to fix the rates of taxation on a living


basis-we do not see how our merchants


tax can be interfered with at present, how


ever anxious we may be to meet the views


and wishes of that enterIEising class. If


these privilege taxes should be abolished, to


any dpprecjdbie extent, the tax on real


estate must go up to sixty or seventy cents
TO make up the deficiency. Such an alter
native cannot be entertained, for we feel
that fifty cents is the highest notch that the
masses of our people can endure, and moth
ing but the imperative demands of a deple-
ted treasury could induce us TO advocate
even that rate. Therefore we would appeal
TO the patriotism and public spirit of the
mercantile community to hold off, in our
present embarrassed condition, and shoul-
der as best they can, their share of the pub
hc burdens baqueathed us by Radical
prohigacy. We know it is hard times with
the merchant, and relief would be grateful;
but We know also that it is harder times
with the farmer, and any increase of taxa
ton will crush out all hope and effort.


Besides, We do not regard the array of
statistics presented by our merchants
as an entirely accurate criterion of the
amount Of oppression involved In the privi-
lege tax. All taxes are necessarily a dis
elimination against industry, economy and
enterprise, because the indOlent and shift
less have nothing TO tax. We take it that
the merchant counts his taxes in the ad-
vance on his goods, just as he counts rents,
salaries, fteights, insurance aud other Incl
kalE l,a,. =. Il
comes out of the consumers pocket. Every
man that drinks coffee or sweetens it, and
every woman that wears calico or trims it,
pays proportion Of the privilege tax. The
burden seems TO be already distributed
among all classes as equitably as is possible
in the nature Of things. 1t is virtually an
indirect tax on the people at large, and if it
touches each consumer so lightly as to be
unfelt, SO much the better. Indirect taxa
ton is always the most satisfactory.


Again, the natural currents of finance
tend continually to concentrate money at
commercial centres. For revenues we
must have ready cash, and it is easiest to
collect it where cash accumulates. This
obvious method is certainly the least op-
pressive, and perhaps, after all is said, the
least unjust. One half the revenues of the
United States are collected in New York
city, because it is our great commercial EN-
porium; but the burden is none the less dis
tributed throughout the country. 1t may
be objected that this makes the merchant
revenue collector for the government; but
so is the landlord a collector of taxes from
every renting householder. In the multi
piled relations of society, every one of us
pays our proportion Of taxes, the only ex-
ception being that while the wealthy
may sometimes shirk some portion of their
burthen, there is no such escape for the poor
and struggling.


For these reasons We question the eXped-
iency of interfering at present with our es-
tablished channels of revenue. When bet
ter times justify it t,none shall be more clam
orous than we for the freest commerce pos
sible. RUsTICUS.