Direct nnd Indirec, Tnra.ion.
{"character_count": 5495, "word_count": 963, "ccnet_language_score": [0.9564999938011169], "ccnet_perplexity": [1554.800048828125], "fasttext_language": ["en"]}
by Messrs. C. ]. IScERsoLL and GILhER.


Direct nnd Indirect Tnxaiion.


There is no use in demolishng proposition for
which nobody is responsible Such is the case
with the present Leco-Foco demonstrations or
fselers in favor Of an abolition of all Custom
House Duties and the support of the Federal
Government by Direct Taxation. Suppose we
show its utter absurdity and suicidal policy, what
have we gained by it7 Who stands behind it I?
That moment the adversary tacks, and exclaims,
20, we are not in favor of Direct Taxes, unless
as an alternative; we are in favor of Reusnue
Tariff, or Jpdicious Tariff, or perhaps Incl
dental Protection or some other artful dodge,
and thus we have only thrown away our powder.
But if Loco-F Focoism will ever distinctly take its
stand On that to which its doctrines lead and its
arguments distinctly tond-namely, nc Customs
and all Revenue to be raised by Direct Taxes, we
promise it as thorough riddling as heart can
desire.


But we received, some weeks since, from an
anonymous inquirer-obviously plain, sincere
man. who works for his living-some queries
the relative advantages of the two Revenue sys-
tems, and on the justice and policy of Indirect
Taxes, deserving respectful reply, which we shall
proceed to give. We have misaid the queries,
but recollect their drift, and shall reply accord
ingly.


l. The advocates of Direct Taxes contend that
by Tariff People are taxed instead Of Prsperty
and that poor man pays as much toward the
support of the Government as rich one. Let





We have here first tacit assumption that all
taxes should be laid on Property, rather on in
dividuals in proportion to the amount OF their Pro-
perty. This is commonly admitted but is it sound
What is Government Is it not Il mere associa-
tion of individuals or families to secure certain
benefits or ward off apprehended evils can
only be done in their united capacity! Is it not
coar that each should pay, not in proportion the
Property he may chance to possess, but to the
benefits conferred on him By that especial organ
ization? If Jones and l make upa fishing party,
cunning excursion, or pleasure trip to the
Sault ST. Marie, is it not evident that we should
share the equally, according to the number
we respectively embark in the expedition, without
regard to the amount either of US may be worth
If We charter vessel together and despatch her
on commercial enterprise, do we not pay accord
ing to our respective ventures freight, with ne
regard to our relative property elsewhere? Now
the State Governments, being instituted mainly to
protect Property we'll as Persons from domestic
outrage and wrong, may properly, but not exclu-
svely tax property for their support; but the Fede
raj Government, being instituted mainly to guard
and protect US in our external relations should levy
Its taxes with reference to that fact In other words,
the due Protection and regulation Of foreign Com
mercc and it's incidents is the main business ofthat
Government, and it is but right that Commerce
should contribute largely to its support. And if
one man requires and consumes more foreign goods
than another, he in that respect derives greater
bene6, from the Federal Government in the shield
which it holds over Commerce, and should be taxed
accordingly.


And now to the case in hand: Does poor man
pay as much as rich one toward the support Of
the Federal Government under Tariff of any
kind Does q hod-carrier or carman consume
an equal quantity of foreign products with bank
er, capitalist, prncey merchant? Such 10
the assumptions but is it not contradicted by the
painest and most notorious facts Is it not well
known general rule that every man lives according
to his income-son,e, indeed, above and some be-
low it. but still with general and average refer
ence thereto! The man whose income is $4,000
year will very rarely live on $500 the man who
can earn but $780, how often does he spend So DOOR
There are instances, of course, of peryerseness in
this as in all things but they do not invalidate the
obvious rule.


Now, as very general rule, that large portion
of our population who live by their Labor alone
consume mainly the direet .truits Of that labor,
on which no duty is levied or paid A Afarmerwho
raises $500 worth Of produce per year, and con-
saaies half of it al home will not buy $50 worth
cfFereign products in year. On the other hand,
man whose expenses are $4,000 per annum will
necessarily pay more than half of j, for Silks, La
ces, Cloths, Wines, Liquors, Teas, Spices, Cutie
ry, Porcelain, &c. which come from abroad. Lux
ury is almost always looking abroad for its indul-
gences Frngality can mainly satisfy its wants
very we'll ut home A rich man who purchases
no more fersign goods than poor one is On anon.
] ally of very infreqeunt occurrence. We do not be-
keve The wit of man could devise mode of taxa
aoa so luss aud equal that By Duties on Imports


hut consider what is the effect of Import Du-
uss on the reacard OF Labor We canno, of course
go tuiy INTO this suhjec, here for it would require
volume and we do no, wish to rspea. all we
have been saying for year. The efsec, Of Tariffs
IN gy'ns steadness to markets and prices esnno,
be overlooked by any. We hold them abso,,.e,,
essential to prevent the Industry of conn,rv ,,a
ultimately of all Countries, from being enyu,fea
and cnsiayed BY an overshsdowing Commercial
Feadaity, which is the grea, danger of the age of
rapid and cheap inter-communication to which ,va