Political Economy is the Science of Buying and Selling. It must include of course in its discussions the Motives, the Methods, the Obstacles, the Rewards, relating to Sales, which are themselves first to be defined as furnishing the sole Field of the Science. We have now gone through with painstaking all of these topics in order, but we have not yet fairly struck Taxation, which is indeed in all its forms an obstacle to Sales, and in some of them the annihilation of Sales, but which in its nature is something much more than an obstacle, namely, a Condition of something higher than itself. In the very strictest sense of the terms, Taxation is not a part of the Science of Political Economy, because it is not an essential part of any one of those natural processes by which men buy and sell and get gain. It is rather a Condition through Government of the successful ongoing of all those processes. There cannot be, therefore, a science of Taxes, as there is unquestionably a science of Sales. The facts of Taxes are artificial and governmental, the facts of Sales are natural and original.

All forms of Production, as we have now seen, go forward in accordance with positive natural forces and motives, which God has appointed, and which men have a natural impulse to ascertain and generalize and profit by; for it is Nature bids men work and save, buy and sell, invent and transport, navigate and grow rich; but Nature has given no whisper anywhere, at least that we can hear, about any Taxes. That is the work of Society. That seems to be something negative, not positive, so far as Buying and Selling is concerned. Taxation is indeed something necessary to the social order, as men are; it furnishes means of defence against greater evils than itself is; but in itself considered, it is an economic evil, because it takes away from exchangers a part of the gains of their exchanges; strictly speaking, therefore, it cannot be made a part of Economic Science.

But, on the other hand, as we shall see at length in the exposition that follows, all the relations of Taxation from the beginning to the end are so ultimately connected with Exchanges, are so founded on and limited by Exchanges, its true principles are so exclusively economical, and its abuses are so instantly and constantly harmful to all the ongoings of natural and profitable Trade, that Taxation must always be treated as if it were a part of Economics. The latter is a science, the former is an art; but the art is almost exclusively dependent upon the principles of this one science; and a comprehensive treatise on the science, accordingly, must exhibit all its main bearings upon those practical rules of Taxation, which are so vital to the happiness and prosperity of any People. All scientific Economists, therefore, have considered the subject of Taxes to lie within their legitimate beat. They have, however, justified the inclusion upon very different grounds, one from another; and so far as now appears, the present writer was the first technical Economist to disclaim in the name of his Science direct jurisdiction over Taxation.

A careful discussion of a series of distinct though related Questions belonging to Taxes will exhibit the whole practical matter in the light of well-established principles of economical Science.

1. What is the fundamental Ground of Taxes? Government is an essential prerequisite to any general and satisfactory Exchanges, since it contributes by direct effort to the security of person and property; and justly claims, therefore, from each citizen a compensation in return for the Services thus rendered to him. We do not mean to say that government exists solely for the protection of person and property, or that all the operations of government are to be brought down within the sphere of exchange, for government exists as well for the improvement as for the protection of society, and many of its high functions are moral, to be performed under a lofty sense of responsibility to God and to future ages; nor do we mean to say that government has not also a deep ground for its existence, in virtue of which it may on extraordinary occasions demand all the property of all, and even the lives of some, of its citizens; but we do mean to say that, whatever may be conceded as the ultimate ground of government, the matter of taxation, by which government is outwardly and ordinarily supported, and by which it takes to itself a part of the gains of every man's industry, finds a ready and solid justification in the common principles of Exchange. If, as far as the tax-payer is concerned, the exchange does not seem to be voluntary, on a closer analysis it is seen to be really voluntary; for in effect the people organize government for themselves, and voluntarily support it, and there is no government separate from the will of the people.

In a very important sense, accordingly, a tax paid is a reward for a service rendered. The service which government renders to Production by its laws, courts, and officers, by the force which it is at all times ready to exert in behalf of any citizen or the whole society when threatened with evil in person or property, is rendered somewhat on the principle of division of labor, one set of agents devoting themselves to that work; and, notwithstanding some crying abuses of authority which no constitution or public virtue has yet been found adequate wholly to avert, is rendered on the whole economically and satisfactorily. Taxes, therefore, demanded of citizens by a lawful government which tolerably performs its functions, are legitimate and just on principles of Exchange alone.

2. What is the Source out of which Taxes are actually paid? The answer is, out of the gains of Exchanges of some sort. Gifts aside, and thefts which are out of the question, no man ever did, no man ever can, pay his taxes, except out of the gains of some sales which he has already made. Even the man who lives wholly on the interest of his money must make a true exchange in lending it (a credit transaction), and must already have gotten his return-service in interest, before he can pay his taxes; personal and professional servants must receive their wages, the outcome of exchanges, before they can possibly pay their taxes; and men can realize nothing for taxes or other payments from their farms or foundries or stocks in trade except as they sell either them or their products. The more sales, the more gains, and the greater reservoir whence taxes may be drawn. Political Economy, as the vindicator of sales, as the defender of all legitimate gains whatsoever, is the best possible friend of tax-payers and tax-gatherers as such. Whatever thought or force restricts sales, makes it pro tanto the harder to pay and collect taxes, so much the harder for a government to keep its head above water and reach the ends of its being.

It follows from all this, by a necessary inference, that the annual Taxes of any country must come out of the annual Earnings of the people of that country, using the word "earnings" in its general and proper sense. The greater the earnings per capita, the easier are the taxes paid. Sir Richard Temple read an address not long since in the Section of Economic Science and Statistics of the British Association, some of whose results are not only interesting but also astonishing. For instance, taking the whole population of the United Kingdom (England, Scotland, and Ireland), without division into classes, he demonstrates that the average of yearly earnings per head of the population is £35 4s., or $171.28. This exceeds the average earnings in the United States by 30%, £27 4s.:£35 4s. It exceeds also the average on the Continent of Europe by 95%, £18 1s.:£35 4s. It falls below that of Australia only, £43 4s.:£35 4s., or 19% less. Canada's average earnings per capita are $126.80, or 5% less than those in the United States, £27 4s.:£26 18s. According to the same unimpeachable authority in the same paper, the annual income from investments is in Great Britain and the United States as nearly as possible one-seventh of the aggregate Property in each (all kinds), or 14%. In Canada and Australia, 18% and 22% respectively. Undoubtedly the most profitable country in the world at present is Australia, and Great Britain stands next. The only apparent reason why the United States, whose natural resources of every kind are vastly superior to either, takes the third rank is, that profitable exchanges here are forcefully suppressed by law, and that to an enormous extent, neutralizing natural resources and glorious opportunities for easily acquired and widespread gains. This violent suppression of commerce by national legislation makes it just so much the harder for any man to pay his taxes, whether these be due to Nation, State, or Municipality. If the reservoir be diminished the flow from it through every pipe becomes feebler.

3. In what Proportion ought the individual citizens to contribute to the fund annually necessary to be raised by Taxation? The usual answer has been, that a man should be taxed according to his Property. That is the radically correct answer, though most who have given it have not understood clearly the meaning of the word property. We have already seen that the ultimate idea of property is the power and right to render services in exchange, and defined it as anything that can be bought and sold. Robinson Crusoe, while solitary upon his island, did not and could not have property, in the true sense of that word. It is not the fact of appropriation that makes anything property; it is not the fact that a man has made it or transformed it, that makes anything property; it is not the fact that a man may rightfully give it away, that makes anything property; but it is the fact that a man has something, no matter what it is, for which something else may be obtained in exchange, that makes that something property, and gives government the right to tax it. In other words, property consists in Values, in a purchasing-power, and not in possession, or in appropriation, or in the esteem in which a man holds anything he has as long as it is his own.

The test of property is a sale; that which will bring something when exposed for exchange is property; that which will bring nothing, either never was, or has now ceased to be, distinctively property. This view may not seem to be as novel as it is, or it may be prejudiced by its very novelty, but at any rate it carries along with it that strongest of the criteria of truth, that it simplifies and illumines a confused section of the field of human thinking; and at the same time justifies a practice which governments have reached, as it were through instinct, the practice, namely, of taxing men who have neither real estate nor chattels, on their incomes from industry and from credits.

To the general question, then, in what proportions shall the citizens contribute in taxes to the support of government, the general answer comes, that they ought to contribute in proportion to the gains of their exchanges, of whatever kind they may be. The farm, the foundry, the mill, the railroad, the real estate of every name; personal property of every kind; and personal acquirements and efforts of all descriptions, best appear, for the purposes of taxation, through the gains realized by means of them. If, for any reason, any of these become unproductive, taxes should cease to be derived from them; indeed, must cease to be derived from them, because their owners can no longer pay by virtue of them. It may be objected that lands, for example, presently unproductive, may be held untaxed under this principle, held for the sake of a prospective rise of price. Very well; when they are sold at a profit, let the owner be taxed on that profit: it will be time enough then, especially as men do not like to hold unproductive forms of property. It may also be objected, that, under this principle, wages, the result of personal and professional exertion, would be taxed just the same as profits and rents, the result of previously accumulated property. Very well; they ought to be so taxed. Can anybody give a solid reason why they ought not to be so taxed? One may say, that a professional man earning a large income, on which taxes are paid the same as on a similar income of a land proprietor, dying, leaves to his children no further means of earning, while the land-proprietor, dying, does leave such means. Granted; but the land income continues to pay taxes, while that professional income does not! Other members of the profession will do the business which the former one would have done had he lived, and they will pay taxes on the income from it. What a man transmits to his children, whether a great name or a great estate, has nothing to do with the amount of taxes that he ought to pay while he lives.

There is an illusion about lands and real property that needs to be dissipated before men will understand clearly the whole matter of Taxation. Without constant watchfulness and foresight, without constant efforts in improvements and repairs, almost every form of realized property will rapidly deteriorate and become unproductive. Land even in Great Britain, where land is scarce, is only worth about twenty-five years' rent; and without the exercise of intelligence and will property ceases to be. Property has its birth in services exchanged; services exchanged give rise to gains; taxes can only be paid out of these gains; they ought to be proportioned to the amount of these gains without any reference to the class of exchanges producing them; while the right to tax on the part of the government is connected with a service rendered by government, and both grows out of and is limited by the right to exchange on the part of the citizens. These considerations, though they may exclude the propriety of a poll-tax, are consistent with most other forms of taxation, and give unity to them.

4. Does it not follow from all the preceding, that a single and universal Income-Tax would prove the best form of what is in its own nature a subtraction from the gains of the governed for the maintenance of Government? If the approximate amount of Income could in all cases be ascertained, and if no other form of tax were levied upon the same persons, this would seem to be a perfectly unexceptionable mode of Taxation. The only sources of Income are three: Wages, Profits, Rents. It does not seem that gifts are legitimately taxable; they lie outside the field of exchange; they spring from sympathy, from benevolence, from duty; and while exchange must claim all that fairly belongs to it, it must be careful not to throw discouragements into the adjacent but distinct fields of morals. Hence, it may well be questioned whether legacies, bequeathments, gifts to charitable and educational institutions, and gifts to individuals proceeding from friendship, gratitude, or other such impulse, are properly subject to taxation. The property is taxable in the hands of the donor, and may be in the hands of the recipient, but the passage from one to the other ought to be unobstructed by a tax. Gifts, then, excepted, and plunder, which is out of the question, the sources of income are few and simple, and there is no great difficulty in every man ascertaining about what his annual income is. Because this income, exactly ascertained, exactly measures the gains of his exchanges for that year, a tax upon that income is the fairest of all possible forms of taxation, and might be made with advantage, in time, to supersede all other forms.

Superficial objections may be easily raised, and are raised constantly in the United States, against any form of an income-tax. Reference is often had to our national experience with such a tax during and just after the late Civil War. The truth is, that tax was thrown on in addition to, and in no proper relations with, a large number of other national taxes of all sorts, good and bad; it was no possible experiment in Taxation, because there was no opportunity of watching its operation separate from that of other and confused forms; industry of all kinds was demoralized by the war, and still more by a depreciated and abominable paper money made legal tender for all debts; and the tax became unpopular in influential quarters for certain reasons not inherent in the nature of the tax, and was discontinued in consequence. In order to be fairly tested, an income-tax should either be exclusive, all other taxes being intermitted for the time being; or at least levied simply in itself in connection with a few other simple taxes, each of which can be watched in its incidence and results separately from the others.

Great Britain derives its national revenues almost wholly from five sources; namely, (1) Excises, say £27,000,000 annually; (2) Customs, say £20,000,000; (3) Incomes, say £12,000,000; (4) Stamps, say £12,000,000; (5) Postals, say £9,000,000. The remaining, say £10,000,000, come from miscellaneous sources. One feature of the English Income-tax is, that it is varied from time to time according to prevailing national needs, the rate having been lifted from 2d. to 16d. per pound of income, according to estimated expenditures. In 1857, it realized in our money $80,255,000. In 1866, the largest year, our own national income-tax realized $60,894,135. By varying the rate to the pound of income according to the prospective wants of the Exchequer, the English have found for about forty years their income-tax to be the most uniform, unfailing, expansive, and responsive to control, of all their fiscal expedients.

The Prussians, too, are applying an income-tax as a means of raising revenue with good success. There, as in England it is somewhat complicated with other kinds of taxes, and cannot exhibit itself altogether in its own nature as if it were exclusive, such as all scientific economists would like to see it tried somewhere on a large scale; and the Germans have a different method from the English, of making the tax more or less flexible as circumstances vary. The English change the rate of the tax to the unit of income: the Germans graduate the tax to different classes of income-receivers. For example, those persons having an income between 420 and 660 marks a year pay 84 pennies (pfennige) as income-tax; persons in the next higher class pay 164 pennies a year; those in the class, whose maximum income is 6000 marks, pay 44 marks and 80 pennies a year; and all persons whose income does not rise above 420 marks are not subject to this tax. On account of hard times a few years ago, Bismarck brought it about, that all the classes included between 420 and 6000 marks of income should be wholly exempted from one-quarter's taxes. A mark is 23.82 of our cents; and a pfennig is one-hundredth of a mark.

Besides the complete harmony of an Income-tax with the general principles of Taxation, as already unfolded, it has several specific advantages over other forms of Taxes.

a. It has no tendency to disturb prices. Were there no taxation except on Incomes, and were all the incomes rightly ascertained, the prices of everything would be just as if there were no taxes at all. Taxation would then be like the atmosphere, pressing equally on all points and consciously on none. It is through tricks wrought on Prices, that the greatest and most widely spread injustices have been done and suffered in this country during the past thirty years: a depreciated Money, whether of paper or silver, raises some prices and not others, and some prices before others, and thus distributes its mischiefs unequally; protectionist tariff-taxes play of design fantastic tricks with prices, raising some and depressing others, thus working monstrous injustice on a vast scale; and almost all forms of taxation become unequal and unjust through their diverse action on Prices. But a universal Income-tax exclusive of all others, properly levied and fully responded to by the payers, would have no influence at all upon prices, could by no possibility work essential injustice, and would be certain to be very productive without becoming burdensome.

b. A second great advantage of such an Income-tax in such a country as this, would manifestly be, that all men would be obliged to keep exact pecuniary accounts; more orderly methods of Business would generally prevail; most men would know much better than they do now how they stand themselves, and whom of others to safely trust; sudden commercial failures, indeed failures at all, would be less frequent and severe; and everything in the business world would be more aboveboard and better known.

c. A third advantage of such an Income-tax, and the chief, would be its tendencies to fiscal simplicity. Complexities in the Exchequer are always and in many ways expensive to the People. In this country, where distinct taxes have to be paid, first to the local municipality, then to the State, and last to the Nation, Income-taxes, were all others abolished, would have this striking advantage, that the local municipality might best ascertain the incomes of all its legal residents once for all, no matter from what sources local or other the incomes be derived; and, having collected its own local per centum, the State and then the Nation would each have to collect an additional per centum on the same income for themselves. Or, better still, by an amicable arrangement, neither party yielding up its inherent right to tax, one set of officials might ascertain the incomes and also collect the tax for all three governments once for all. It may be long, it doubtless will be, before we shall ever come to such economy and simplicity and fiscal beauty as this is; for the pride of sovereignty is very strong both in State and Nation; each is jealous of the powers of the other, each is fond of the pelf and patronage and officialism connected with the gathering of the taxes, and each would be disinclined to yield anything to the other; but the fact remains, that, as it is of acknowledged moment to have the single CÆsar's image and inscription on every piece of the national Money, so it is of almost equal moment in point of cheapness and clearness and simplicity to have the hand of CÆsar seen but once in taking in the Taxes.

Objection has been often raised to any form of Income-tax from the publicity of private affairs resulting from it. It was just this that proved fatal to our own first experiment along this line of national action. But there seems to be some confusion of ideas in connection with this phrase, "publicity of private affairs," for really, so far as taxation is concerned, there ought to be nothing "private" about the amount of any man's income, or the aggregate of all forms of his property, inasmuch as every man has a right to know, that all his neighbors are contributing pro rata with himself to support that Government, which is common to him and them. There is nothing, at least there should be nothing, "private" in connection with Government; that is the one absolutely "public" thing of the world; least of all should there be anything private in the matter of public taxes, since in bearing up the burdens of Government all the citizens are alike copartners, and in this view and for this purpose each has a right to demand a look into the books of all the others.

Another objection has often been raised, namely, that some men will never give in a true return of their Income. Ah! but they can be made to do so, as the forms are perfected, as fraudulent returns are promptly punished by additional assessment and collection, and as the memory and conscience of the payers are quickened by the action of a healthful public opinion brought to bear through the annual publication of the list of their returns. Men are not so isolated from each other as that a man's neighbors do not know pretty well the general amount of his income. There is the additional security of an oath, of the fear of punishment, and of the wish to stand well with one's class. At the worst, it may be said, that evasions and fraud accompany also all other forms of Taxation.

5. What is the difference between Direct and Indirect Taxes? This is an old and proper division: we must now see what is the economical basis of it. A direct tax is levied on the very persons who are expected themselves to pay it; an indirect tax is demanded from one person in the expectation that he will pay it provisionally, but will indemnify himself in the higher price which he will receive from the ultimate consumer. Thus an income tax is direct, while duties laid on imported goods are indirect. There has been a great amount of discussion on the point whether direct or indirect taxation be the more eligible form; but the reader of penetration will perceive that there is not at bottom any very radical difference between them; each is alike a tax on actual or possible exchanges, with this main difference, that men pay indirect taxes as a part of the price of the goods they buy, without thinking perhaps that it is a tax they are paying, and consequently without any of the repugnance that is sometimes felt towards a tax-gatherer who comes with an unwelcome demand. Thus indirect taxes are conveniently and economically collected. Especially is this true of impost taxes; since one set of custom-house officers may collect easily and at once the government tax which is ultimately paid by consumers all over the country. The taxes also levied by the present United States internal revenue law are indirect taxes, whereby the government gets in a lump what is afterwards distributed over many subordinate exchanges. The countervailing disadvantage of indirect taxation, however, is, that the price of the commodity is usually enhanced to an extent much beyond the amount of the tax, partly because it is a cover under which dealers may put an unreasonable demand, and partly because the tax, having to be advanced over and over again by the intermediate dealers, profits rapidly accumulate as an element of the ultimate price.

Direct taxes are laid either on Income or Expenditure. As the difficulty of a tax on a person's whole expenditure is much greater than one on his whole income, inasmuch as the items are more numerous and more diffused, it is only attempted to levy a few taxes on some special items of expenditure, such as those on horses, carriages, plate, watches, and so on; but as these do not reach all persons with any degree of quality, they are so far forth objectionable. A house-tax, levied on the occupier, and not on the owner, unless he be at the same time the occupier, would be a direct tax on expenditure every way unobjectionable. Taking society at large, the house a man lives in and its furniture are probably the most accurate index attainable of the size of his general expenditures. They are open to observation and current remark; they are that on which persons rely more perhaps than on anything else external for their consideration and station in life; the tax could be assessed with very little trouble on the part of the assessor; and it is well worthy the attention of our State and National Legislatures, whether such a tax, if more taxes should be needed, would not be more equal and more easy of collection than any others now open; or whether it might not with advantage take the place of some of the complicated and objectionable taxes now laid. Direct taxes have this general advantage over indirect, that they bring the people into more immediate contact with the government that lays the taxes, and subject it to a quicker supervision and more effectual curb, whenever its expenditures grow larger than the people think it desirable to incur; perhaps they have this general disadvantage over indirect taxes, especially over imposts, that the number of officials required to assess and collect them is larger, thus swallowing up a part of the proceeds of the taxes, with this liability also of bringing the people into an attitude of hostility to the government and to its contemplated expenditures. But whether the taxes be direct or indirect, or whatever be their form, except it be a poll-tax, which is questionable at best, they are laid upon Exchanges, and are designed to withdraw for the use of the government a part of the Gains of exchanges.

6. Are Credits a legitimate subject of Taxation? The answer is very easy. Unless this whole treatise from beginning to end be unsound, Credits stand upon the same economical grounds as Commodities and Services, and so may be taxed for the same reasons as those may be taxed. Whatever is bought and sold is properly enough taxed, if the needs of the government require it, and if such taxation would be productive and not too unequal. As Values always spring from the action of individuals, so the incidence of taxes is upon persons rather than upon things; and the question is what can a man sell, or what has he already sold, on the gains of which sale the government may lay some claim? If I have a note and mortgage on my neighbor's farm, I can sell it at any time to a third party; it pays me interest ad interim, and I can collect it at maturity. Government therefore properly taxes me for that credit in my possession. It is a part of my property. The holders of the government bonds occupy an economical position exactly similar. They have a lien on the national property and income. The credits they hold are vendible commodities. They are a paper bearing interest. They can be collected at maturity. They are indeed exempted by law from municipal and State taxation. That was a legitimate inducement held out to everybody alike to invest in the bonds. But there is no reason why the nation, having withdrawn them from town and State taxation, should not itself all the more subject them to their fair share of the national burdens, unless indeed it be claimed, as perhaps it fairly may be, that the exemption enables the government to borrow at a just so much lower rate of interest. The income at any rate derived from the bonds should be taxed as soon as any other income is. It is no longer any ground of merit, even if it ever has been, for persons to buy the government debt. It is a mercantile transaction, and should be so considered in relation to taxes. So of other mercantile credits. They are taxable. Massachusetts has had a great deal of trouble of late years both in the Legislature and otherwise about the taxation of mortgages on taxed Massachusetts farms and other real estate. The question is intricate and full of difficulty. Some things about it, however, are clear. The note and mortgage is a different piece of property, and a different kind of property, from the real estate. It is a peculiar sort of credit. The owner of it is a different person from the owner of the real estate. Either bit of property may change hands without changing the status of the other. The question of taxing the note and mortgage, like the question of taxing the bonds, seems to hinge on the effect it would have on the rate of interest of the obligation secured by the mortgage. If the holder of the mortgage expects to have to pay a tax upon it, he will try to get a higher rate of interest on his money loaned and thus secured. Whether mortgagees taxed as such can throw off the tax upon the mortgagors in a higher rate of interest on the money loaned is a point much disputed and at least doubtful. General principles would lead us to favor the taxation of note and mortgages in the hands of their holders, so long as such cumbersome forms of taxing as prevail in Massachusetts are maintained. A universal income-tax would solve this difficulty also in a moment of time.

7. Has Political Economy anything to say about the Rate of taxes per unit of that which is subject to tax? Yes; it has an important word to say upon that point. From the very nature of Taxes in general, and in order that they may be most productive in the long run, as well as discourage as little as possible the Exchanges which would otherwise go forward, the Rate of taxes ought always to be low relatively to the amount of Values exchangeable. A high rate of tax not infrequently stops exchanges in the taxed articles altogether, and of course the tax then realizes nothing to the government. As the only motive to an exchange is the gain of it, the exchange ceases whenever the government cuts so deeply into the gain as to leave little margin to the exchangers. The greater the gain left to the parties, after the tax is abstracted, the more numerous will the exchanges become, and the greater the number of times will the tax fall into the coffers of the government. In almost all articles, consumption increases from a lowered price in even a greater ratio than the diminution of the rate of tax; so that the interests of consumers and of the revenue are not antagonistic but harmonious. On articles of luxury and ostentation, and on those, such as liquors and tobaccos, whose moral effects are clearly questionable, very high taxes may properly enough be laid, because their incidence will hardly tend to diminish consumption, and it would scarcely be regretted if it did; but with this exception, duties and taxes should be levied at a low rate per centum as well for the interest of revenue as of consumers. It is to be added, however, that the taxes even on these articles may be too high to meet either a revenue or a moral purpose. The internal tax of two dollars a gallon upon distilled spirits was of this character. Experience has demonstrated that a less tax will produce more revenue, and the drinking of whiskey, bad as that is, is less culpable than the endless frauds on the government provoked by the high tax.

8. What is the difference between Specific and Advalorem Taxes, and why should the student take careful note of these both singly and combined? These terms are used more particularly in relation to Tariff-taxes, but there is nothing in the distinction itself so to limit its application. A Specific tax is a tax of so many cents or dollars on the pound, yard, gallon, or other quantity measurable: an Advalorem tax is a tax of so much per centum on the invoiced or appraised money value of the goods subject to the tax. Specific taxes, accordingly, are far simpler and steadier in their operation than the others; it is easy to ascertain the weight or number or other quantity of valuables, and then to apply a fixed ratio to them in the way of tax; the payer knows or may know beforehand precisely how much the tax will amount to, and consequently just how it is to affect the profitableness of his current trade; and on these and other grounds specific taxes are preferable to advalorem ones. To be sure, this form of tax involves that high-priced grades of an article pay no higher taxes than low-priced grades of the same, but this consideration is largely overbalanced by those of convenience and productiveness.

Advalorem taxes, on the other hand, are never calculable beforehand; because Values from their nature are variable, and as a matter of fact do constantly vary. Imported goods, for instance, bring with them the invoice of the seller giving the values at the place of exportation. But the importer is by no means sure that the tax will be levied upon that valuation. The home valuation will of course be higher, otherwise the goods would not be imported. Whenever it becomes the policy of a country, as of the United States at present, to keep foreign goods out to the utmost extent possible under the law, which law is itself devised on purpose to keep them out, there will always be suspicions and charges of undervaluations at the place of export; there will always be a motive on the part of the foreign seller or agent thus to undervalue the goods in the interest of the importer, so as to lessen his tax, and so increase the seller's market; such abnormal tariff-taxes are the enemy of mankind in general, and, therefore, there will be no end of deceits and evasions at both terminals of the ocean-route, and "custom-house oaths" will become a by-word of course; the importing, or rather the non-importing, country will keep in pay an army of spies and informers on both sides of the water in order to prevent what is called "frauds," and another army of "appraisers" at its custom-houses in order to discredit the invoices, and to jump at a valuation of the goods, on which the tax shall be levied; and honorable merchants and importers, without any fault of their own, are liable to get entangled in the miserable meshes of such goings-on, as happened in a memorable case in New York a few years ago, and be mulcted in fines (perhaps to immense amounts) one-half of which shall go to the informer.

There are too many practical difficulties connected with either of these two forms of tax to make it proper to combine the two upon the same article of merchandise. To combine them thus is one of the tricks and traps of Protectionism. That makes it next to impossible for any importer to tell beforehand what the two taxes will aggregate, and quite impossible for any ultimate consumer to tell how much of his price paid is due to the demands of his Government. Opening the official tax-book at random, we quote as follows from a single page: "Webbings, pound 50 cents, and 50 per cent"; "Buttons, pound 50 cents, and 50 per cent"; "Suspenders, pound 50 cents, and 50 per cent"; "Mohair cloth, pound 30 cents, and 50 per cent"; "Dress trimmings, pound 50 cents, and 50 per cent." Besides these, on that same page, there are 14 other articles under similar compound taxes, mostly at 50 cents a pound and 50 per cent additional, this as under the Tariff as it was 1874-83; but all these 18 articles were put in 1883 at "pound 30 cents, and 50 per cent."

9. What are the economical reasons for an Excise or Internal-Tax in connection with Tariff-taxes for revenue? A tariff-tax, whether for revenue or other purpose, raises the price by so much of the article subjected to it and actually imported; now, if similar articles of the same quality be made or grown at home, and be not subjected to a corresponding tax, these will inevitably rise to the price of the foreign, with the tariff-tax added, for there is no possible competition or conceivable impulse that can keep it lower than that; so that, in that case, the government gets in revenue, only the taxes paid on the part imported, while the people are compelled to pay in addition virtually the same taxes on all that part produced at home. Why should not the government have the proceeds of the last as well as of the first? The last is the direct result of the first. If now, a corresponding excise-tax be put on the domestic product also, the government will get in revenue all that the people are obliged to pay in consequence of government-tax. This is just: the other is wantonly unjust.

Take an illustration, please. The national Census of 1890 gives the Pig-iron production of the Census year as 9,579,779 tons of 2000 lbs. each. This is an increase over the production of the Census year, 1880, of 255 per centum,—3,781,021:9,579,779. Fortunately the present Census adds the net imports for the two years respectively, with these results: the per capita consumption of Pig-iron in 1880 was 196 lbs., of which 126 was home production, and 70 of foreign import; while in 1890 the consumption was 320 lbs. per capita, of which 299 was domestic, and 21 foreign. That is to say, in 1880, 65% of the pig-iron consumed in this country was of home production, and 35% was of foreign production. At that time the tariff-tax on imported pig was $7 per ton. Government secured this tax on a little more than one-third of what was consumed, while a small circle of citizens banded together for that purpose secured for themselves this tax on the remaining two-thirds of all pig-iron consumed that year, and the whole people paid the tax on the entire three-thirds. As we shall see fully a little further on, our national Government has no constitutional or other right to tax the people one penny except to supply its own needs as such; if, therefore, the $7 impost per ton were put on as a legitimate tax, there should have been an excise or internal-tax to the same amount put on the pig-iron produced at home. That would have cost the people no more, and the Government would have gotten twice as much more as it did get from the tax. If there be an axiom in Taxation, one point indisputable by any rational human being, it is this: The Treasury should receive all that the people are made to give up under a public tax.

In 1890, this particular matter came to be much more flagrant. Only 21 parts out of 320 parts were in that year foreign pig-iron; that is, a little less than 7%, while 93% was domestic pig-iron; the tariff-tax at that date was .3 of a cent per pound, or $6.72 per ton of 2240 lbs.; the tax was sufficient practically to exclude foreign pig, although the Scotch pig as more fluent is very much desired here in some branches of the iron manufacture, particularly in making steel rails; Government received the proceeds of its own tax on only one-fourteenth of that, which really paid the tax on its whole fourteen-fourteenths; where did the tax on the thirteen-thirteenths go to? If this were a matter of genuine taxation, ought there not to have been an excise on the domestic corresponding to the impost on the foreign?

Precisely that is what we do in the case of other articles not protectionized. For example, in the fiscal year 1889, the excise or internal-tax on "distilled spirits and wines" realized to the Treasury $74,312,200, and the tariff-tax on the same realized $7,123,062, total, $81,435,268; on "malt or fermented liquors" the same year, the excise was $23,723,835, the impost only $663,337, total, $24,387,172; and on "tobacco" the excise was $31,866,860, the impost $11,194,486, total, $43,061,346. These figures are official.

An ostentatious display of private figures and price-lists is often made, with a design to show that the prices of home-made products protectionized are not lifted so high to consumers or buyers as those of foreign-made products with the tariff-taxes added. The main sophistry in these figures is this: the pure assumption, that the quality of the home-made products alleged to be cheaper than the tax-added price of the foreign, is the same as that of the foreign. Unluckily, things are often called by the same names, and even described by the same technical terms, which are very different sorts of things in reality. A subordinate sophistry in these figures, often allowed to pass, but not requiring any sharp insight to detect, is, that the selected price-lists are not the results of an average extending throughout years, but are picked at points when (owing to other causes than the taxes) the current prices of protectionized home products are lower than the average of the years. One easy way to expose the putters-forth of these figures, as not themselves really believing in them, is, gravely to propose to lower or remove the tariff-taxes, which (it is alleged) do not have the effect to lift much, if any, domestic prices. This simple experiment has several times been tried, with ludicrous effect upon the figure-mongers; they cannot spare one iota of present taxes on foreign products: if the smallest fraction be removed, they can no longer make and vend their wares; indeed, heavier tariff-taxes are needed at this very moment, in order to lift the domestic prices higher; and, presto! another set of figures are forthcoming at once to prove the disabilities, either in respect to Labor or Capital, under which the poor protectionized producers are staggering in order to keep the home market!

Another complete refutation of the false position of the protectionists, namely, that the domestics are not lifted in price on the average to the price of the foreigns of the same quality with the tariff-taxes added, is their utter failure and inability to project any reason in the nature of things or the motives of men, why the home-prices should not be thus lifted! What impulse, pray, on the earth or under the earth, can serve to depress them on the whole average below that point? Does any one say, that "domestic competition" will depress and keep depressed the prices of home goods of the same grade below the prices of the foreign taxes paid? Did this astute objector ever hear of "domestic combination" to keep prices up to the highest possible point? To shut down mills and factories, to avoid depressing prices? To sell surplus stocks abroad for what can be gotten for them, in order to make prices at home up to the usual scarcity point? In July, 1890, the Boston Commercial Bulletin, the special organ of Protectionism in New England, and special spokesman for the wool-and-woollens industry, spoke thus of that industry, after 30 years of public hiring the growers and manufacturers to carry it on with a bonus, just at a time when the worsted tariff-taxes had been advanced, alleged custom-house frauds stopped, and still higher tariff-taxes on their way from the so-called McKinley Bill in Congress: "The woollen goods industry was probably never in much worse condition in this country. The slowness of its development may be judged from the fact, that, despite an average yearly increase of over a million in population, the increase in the number of wool cards in this country is less than a hundred a year, while the proportion of woollen machinery shut down between June 1 and September 1 bids fair to be the largest ever known. The market is dull, deadly dull. The large amount of silent machinery is making its presence felt. The sluggish sales of wool are due to most of the big mills being closed. Depression in business is the cause of so many woollen mills closing, and the news comes this week of four woollen mills, three in the Bay State and one in Pennsylvania, that will close for periods ranging from two weeks to several months."

Not only is it true, that the purpose and usual effect of tariff-taxes is to hoist the price of domestics protectionized up to the limit of the corresponding foreigns with the taxes added, but it sometimes happens that the home products are carried for considerable periods at a level a good deal above that. A conspicuous instance of this, commented on at the time by all the Boston papers, was brought to notice a couple of years ago in connection with the steel beams purchased by the city for the new and noble Boston Court-House. The beams were bought in Belgium at $28 a ton, paid at the Boston Custom-house "one and one-fourth cents a pound," that is, just $28 a ton, making their cost to the city $56 a ton. But domestic steel beams of the same general description were selling here at $73 a ton. Their price had been raised here twice in one summer, about fifty cents a ton each time. One of the conglomerated curses of cutting off by law the natural competition in such products is, that the unnatural competition still permitted by law is sluggish in coming into operation, and the monopoly becomes even more such than was intended by the law.

The tariff-tax on steel rails is $17 a ton, formerly $28 a ton, proposed in the McKinley bill to be reduced to $11.20 a ton. That even this last is wholly needless, or any tax at all on steel rails, is proven by the fact, that in March, 1890, Pittsburg rail-makers sold 5000 tons of rails at Vera Cruz at lower prices than the corresponding European rails were offered for in Mexico. Another fact that proves the same thing is this: James M. Swank, the mouth-piece of the Pennsylvania iron and steel interests, describes the year 1885 as one of unprecedented prosperity in the steel-rail industry, and gives a formidable list of new establishments opened in that year. But steel rails were much lower in that exceptional year than in any year before or since. A tariff-tax of $5 a ton would have been in that year absolutely prohibitory, for steel rails were worth less than $28 a ton the greater part of that year. Yet that very year was the year of greatest prosperity, Mr. Swank being the competent witness! But the fact in general, which ought to overwhelm the iron and steel protectionists with confusion, if they were capable of any such emotion, is, that iron and steel in every form of both, owing to the unprecedented bounty of God to this good land, costs less both in labor and capital here than in any other country in the world. The official figures of the current Census demonstrate this, authentic statements of practical operators at the iron mines and furnaces and foundries throughout the Tennessee Valley confirm it, and there is not one particle of evidence to the contrary of any name or nature.

Let the reader notice carefully the following quotation from a private letter to the writer, dated July 30, 1890, written by a graduate of this college, in whom all who know him have the fullest confidence:

"We began to open the mines here just three years ago this Fall, and began shipping the following Spring. Our price for the ore was then about $1.50 a ton, depending on the analysis. We mined in the old-fashioned way—with picks and shovels—and I am safe in saying it cost us all we got for it. I know I was continually making drafts on my father to keep me out of debt. I did not figure on the cost at that time—I was afraid of the figures. My only thought was how to reduce the cost. We had a Steam Shovel in Pennsylvania, and I got my father to send it to me for trial in this ore. We found we could use it to advantage by using also plenty of powder, and I was soon able to buy the second shovel. Of course that reduced the cost of production still lower, and as there was a market for all I could do, I got the third, and am now putting in the fourth, and the fifth is bought and to be delivered inside of 60 days. This doubling up of the shovels made me get locomotives to carry the ore in the mines instead of mules. I have now two locomotives. You will understand how it would make a saving at that point. It would require 15 mules to do that work, and it could not be done so promptly.

During the month of May we shipped about 14,500 tons with the use of three shovels, and at a cost per ton for labor and fuel and powder of 33 cents. We have reduced the cost on a week's run, in good weather and with no lack of empty cars, to 29 cents, but it never came lower on the month's average than 33. I expect this Fall, with five shovels instead of three, and two locomotives instead of one, to lower the cost of production.

Our average price at the mines is $1.20; we sell some higher. I have just now taken a contract for 40,000 tons to be delivered between now and the 1st of February, 1891, at $1.12½. This is the lowest contract price we have ever made, and likely that has ever been made in this locality; but I did it to get into a different market. That ore is to go to Nashville—a distance of 120 miles. The reason for cutting the price to get the increased quantity I will not need to explain to you. You taught it to me. The freight to Nashville is 75 cents. To our other furnaces in Alabama, at Sheffield and Florence, the freight is only 35 cents. What other contracts I have at present are at $1.25.

With three shovels we make from 600 to 800 tons a day. With one shovel we made from 150 to 250 a day. The variation from day to day depends on the quality of the material we handle.

The ore is all washed and picked and screened before it is loaded on the cars. A very important part of the work is the work done in the washer. It requires very expensive machinery, and the wear and tear is enormous.

We pay unskilled laborers ten cents an hour, skilled men as high as twenty-five. We work eleven hours a day. Our general foreman gets $100 a month."

Sugar and Molasses brought in through the tariff in the fiscal year 1889, $55,995,137. The quantity of domestic sugar and molasses relatively to the quantity imported is so small, that an excise upon it in accordance with the general principle of these paragraphs is not worth while, but would be far more just and rational than to offer bounties to the domestic producers out of the taxes paid by the consumers of foreign sugar. A "bounty" in this sense is at once an abuse of a good word, and an abomination in point of fact. For any Government, which is nothing but a Committee of all the citizens to attend to certain joint concerns of all, to abstract money through taxes from the pockets of a part of these citizens in order to reward another part for carrying on an unprofitable branch of business, is something equally repugnant to Economy and Equality.

10. What, then, is the Bottom-Principle in the Mode of Taxation? It is this: Relatively low taxes so adjusted on comparatively few things as not to disturb natural prices. The principle is simple: the problem is difficult; but wonderfully less so the moment all attempts are given up to foster any branch of industry whatever. Our legislators are not called upon to foster any industries. It is out of their beat. They cannot permanently do it, if they try; and they do immense harm while they try. Their "bounty," instead of being a gift, as the word imports, is a haphazard bestowment of other people's money extorted from them by public taxes. The problem becomes simpler every year of public experience under the practical design of so laying the public burdens as to realize to the Treasury the most money with the least possible interference with what would otherwise be the on-going of Exchanges in all directions. So relatively simple and easy has the English taxing system become, under this one leading design, that Gladstone performed without difficulty the functions of Chancellor of the Exchequer in conjunction with the far more arduous and complicated duties of Prime Minister.

Low taxes on few things. The opposite of this principle at either of its two points becomes at once pernicious. High taxes in general prevent exchanges altogether, by cutting in too deeply in the gain of them, which is the sole motive to them; high imposts prevent importations, and of course destroy the profitable exportations consequent to, and conditioned on, such importations; high taxes even on few things are apt to raise prices of other articles than those on which they are directly levied, and so become objectionable always, and unbearable whenever it is their purpose to raise such prices: taxes on many things, and even on few things every time they change hands, throw an indefinite burden on Exchange, whose weight cannot well be calculated beforehand, either by the consumer or by the government, through uncertainty as to the number of transfers. Once for all, and then an end. Exchanges are indeed the only legitimate subject of taxation, but not every specific and subordinate exchange. An attempt to tax all sales whatever was followed in Spain, and will be followed everywhere, by a sluggish indisposition to trade at all. Let the amount of the tax be definite, and let everybody be sure that when it is once paid government will produce no further claim, and industry will go along under heavy taxes better than under those nominally lighter to which uncertainty as to time or amount attaches. All the more advanced governments have been simplifying of late years their systems of taxation, and collecting their revenue at fewer points, and under more tangible conditions, in order to interfere as little as possible with a free industry and free exchange.

The subsidiary principle is important, namely, that all taxes should be collected by the government in as economical a manner as possible, inasmuch as all direct and indirect costs of collection are so much added to the burdens of the People. This covers two practical points: (1) the number and efficiency of the tax-gatherers, and the whole outward machinery of collection, such as the custom-houses, offices of internal revenue, and so on. These, as they concern the whole people equally, should be separated as far as possible from party politics, and the inevitable corruptions thereupon attendant. All the fiscal officers of the United States, from the Secretary of the Treasury down to the lowest tide-waiter, are liable to be changed every four years, and as a matter of fact are usually to a very large extent so changed, to the great detriment of the service and ultimate expense of the people, to say nothing of the moral losses and crevasses involved. (2) The tax-money should be kept out of the pockets of the people as short a time as possible, disbursement following quick upon collection. It is poor policy to gather taxes at the beginning of the year which will not be disbursed till the end of the year. Let the people use their funds till they are wanted at the treasury; and if the taxes do not then come in as fast as wanted, it is better to issue what are called in England exchequer-bills, and in the United States certificates of indebtedness, to be redeemed at the end of the year from the proceeds of the taxes, than to let the people's money lie idle in the treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury should have nothing to do or say about the circulating medium of the country, or the loanable price of the units of it, under any circumstances whatever. He is neither competent enough in Knowledge nor enough established in Integrity to be trusted with any such functions.

11. Should there be any exemptions from Taxation? If the necessities of the State require it, government has the right to demand from all persons who are capable of making exchanges, and who do make them, something in the form of taxes. But it is every way better, when possible, that people of very moderate means should be exempted altogether from direct taxes; and the payment of indirect taxes is a matter more in their own option, since they are at liberty to buy much or little of those commodities subjected to an indirect tax. In the State of Massachusetts, incomes not exceeding $2000 are exempted by the law. If a house-tax should be levied, all houses below a certain grade of style and comfort should be exempted, and the tax pass up by easy gradations from those just taxed to the palatial residences of the rich. In the present age of the world, the well-to-do citizens of every country are able to bear without too great difficulty the burdens of the government, and nothing tests better the degree of civilization which a nation has reached than the care and solicitude it displays for the welfare of its poorer citizens.

12. Who pays the indirect taxes? At a court ball, Napoleon the First once observed a lady noticeable as richly dressed and as wearing splendid diamonds, and on asking her name, found that she was the wife of a tobacco manufacturer of Paris; it occurred at once to the quick mind of the French ruler, that the State might just as well have those profits as an individual; and the sale of tobacco in all its forms became accordingly a State monopoly, which now yields about 400,000,000 francs a year. That is indirect taxation. So is the British and United States tariff and excise on tobacco. Producers and dealers and bankers and companies add the tax demanded from them, and sometimes more than the tax under color of it, to the price of their wares. But it is not true that they can always realize the whole of this enhanced price. Generally they can, sometimes they cannot. If the article be one of necessity, or a luxury that has become equivalent to a necessity, and there be no other source of supply than the taxed one, then, as a rule, the tax falls wholly on the consumer, and is a matter of indifference to the producer or dealer. But the usual effect of an enhanced price is to lessen demand, and if the article is dispensable, or its consumption can be lessened, or it can be obtained elsewhere, the market will be sluggish under the tax, and producers or dealers will be likely to tempt it by lowering prices, in other words, by sharing the tax with consumers, and paying that share out of profits. This is the principle. Producers and dealers would rather the tax were off. Consumers generally, but do not always, pay the whole of it.

13. What is to be said about the diffusion of Taxes? David A. Wells, an admirable and indefatigable authority on all practical questions in Economics, though perhaps less skilled in scientific classification and generalizations, several years ago made somewhat prominent in public discussion the tendency of Taxes to diffuse themselves. Much more has been written about this than is actually known about it. By Diffusion is meant that it does not make so much difference upon what or upon whom a tax is originally levied, because the tendency of things is to diffuse it, that is, to compel others to assist in paying the tax. The result of much personal reading and reflection on this point is the conclusion that taxes do not "diffuse themselves" nearly so much as has been sometimes supposed; and that, at any rate, it is a good deal better to take the taxes from those who ought to pay them, than to lay them at random, and then to trust some unknown forces to make them afterwards just. It is certain that some unjust taxes cannot be diffused; for example, the protective tariff-taxes paid by the farmers upon articles of necessary consumption. These taxes have no tendency to raise the price of the farmers' produce, for that is determined by the foreign market, to which large parts of the produce are exported. For such taxes the farmers cannot reimburse themselves. Taxes that affect no prices are the best of all; taxes that affect prices the least are the next best; and taxes that are designed to affect prices are the very worst.

14. What are the bearings of the United States Constitution on the whole matter of Taxation in this country? We have now seen pretty fully, what the science of Economics has to say about the sources and modes and results of tax-laying: but we are bound to tell also, what the kindred but much less developed science of Politics, and particularly what the Constitution of the Fathers, has to say upon the same vitally important topics.

(1) The first power granted by the People to Congress, which is simply their agent, in that Instrument from which each of the three great Departments of Government derives all its authority, is in these words, exactly copied from the original and official parchment in every particular: "The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States." This grant of power, which stands first in order, is followed by seventeen other express powers granted to Congress in the same eighth Section of the first Article.

There never has been any difference of opinion, and there cannot be under such completely explicit language as this, among competent Statesmen and Commentators, as to the exact meaning of this clause, namely, Congress is given power to lay taxes in order to get money, with which to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States. That was the opinion and purpose of every member of the Federal Convention, that framed the Constitution in the summer of 1787; of Alexander Hamilton, who was first called on as Secretary of the Treasury officially to interpret it; of Daniel Webster, often called the "great expounder" of the Constitution; of John Marshall, the great Chief Justice of the Supreme Court; of Judge Story, the first copious and most distinguished commentator upon the Text; of George Bancroft and George T. Curtis, the learned and elaborate historians of the Text; and in short, of everybody else, who has earned any right in any way to have an opinion on any such matter of political interpretation.

Why, then, has there been from the first until now, a feeble flutter of butterfly wings around the clause, as if, somehow or other, it gave Congress by hook or by crook some power or other to do something else than to lay taxes in order to get money for the maintenance of the national Government? As if there lay concealed in the language somewhere a power to lay taxes for a purpose precisely opposite to that expressed in the text, namely, nominal taxes designed to prohibit any money being gotten under them? And why did Hamilton himself, whose wings were those of an eagle, sweep low and hover uncertainly about these words, and so give color to the political historians of our time to say: "Once more laying hold of the "general welfare" clause of the Constitution, Hamilton here argued, under color of giving bounties to manufactures, as though Congress might take under its own management every thing which that body should pronounce to be for the general welfare, provided only it was susceptible of the application of money. Though he limited this central discretion to the application of money, and stated some restrictions rather vaguely, the insidious tenor of his report was to show that the Federal power of raising money was plenary and indefinitely great."

The true answer to these questions is a point of Grammar. The simple English infinitive, unlike the simple infinitive of any other language with which the writer is acquainted, often expresses purpose, as well as the action of the verb without limitation of person or number; so that, it is perfectly good English to say, "To lay taxes to pay," when the only possible sense of it is, "To lay taxes in order to pay." Greek, Latin, and German would use here with the infinitive the particle expressing the purpose: the English language does not. It is not true to say, that ambiguity enters this clause, through the common and elegant use of the simple infinitive in English to express the purpose; but it is true to say, that superficial confusion has entered here, and a mess of bad logic. What makes it absolutely certain, beyond the possibility of a controversy, that Congress can levy taxes only in order to get money by means of them, is, (a) that is the only English of the clause; (b) the "debts" of the United States can only be paid in money; and (c) if this be not the meaning of the clause, its meaning must then be plenary, and there would be no need or place for the remaining seventeen powers, "and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States or in any Department or Officer thereof"; in other words, any other interpretation of the taxing clause than the plain one would destroy the Constitution root and branch; for, if Congress have the general power "to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," all other possible powers are included in this, and President and Court disappear, and all other clauses of the Text are a nullity.

If the above course of reasoning be sound, and he would be a bold logician who should openly dispute it, then taxes laid for any other end than revenue are clearly unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has never passed upon this bald point, for it has never been mooted in this form; but one would think, there can be little doubt how the judges would decide in any "case" directly involving the constitutional power of Congress to levy prohibitory tariff-taxes, whose avowed or clearly inferrible design it is, not to get money with which to pay the debts and so on, but to cut off the possibility of getting any money thereby. The general trend of the decisions of the Supreme Court has wisely been, to leave in their interpretations of the Text the widest margin of discretion to the Legislative branch as to the best means of raising revenue; but when it comes to face the question of allowing as constitutional the best means of preventing revenue,—well, may we be there to see and hear!

(2) There are prohibitions on Congress in the Constitution, as well as powers conferred, and among these this: "No tax or duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." This is a part of the third great Compromise of the Constitution, and was a concession to the southern and planting States to make more palatable to them the power "to regulate commerce," that was expected to be used (and was used) in behalf of the northern and navigating States. But the concession was more nominal than real, as the southerners found out in time to their vexation. To prohibit taxes on exports, and to leave in full vigor the power to tax imports, though consonant with the then prevailing delusion of Mercantilism, is no boon to commerce in general; because, any restriction on buying products is equally and instantly a restriction on selling products. Exemption from taxes on exports is a good thing in itself, but the only reason for selling exports is to take in profitable pay the imports naturally offered against them; and if these be restricted or prohibited, the restriction or prohibition applies instantaneously and inevitably to the would-be exports. A reasonable liberty of exporting is nothing, unless accompanied by a reasonable liberty of importing, because the imports pay for the exports and the exports buy the imports.

The southern States rejoiced for a time in this exemption-clause of the Constitution, for their rice and cotton and indigo found no obstacles in going out; but the only motive in sending them out was to buy something with them to bring back; and after the snare of Protectionism entangled the People in 1816, 1824, and specially in 1828, when the "Tariff of Abominations" was passed, the southern people saw only too distinctly, that taxes on imports which they wished to bring in were the same in effect as taxes on their own exports would have been. Mr. Calhoun and the others were effectually undeceived by the customary on-goings of commerce; and as the northern statesmen unwisely and unpatriotically determined to crowd this iron home in 1828, the party of the other part developed under great provocation the doctrines of Nullification and Secession, which have since caused a plenty of tears and bloodshed. One wrong ever begets other wrongs. The wretched Greed of one section of the country was own father to the wrongful Secession of the other section.

The Farmers of this country have often been congratulated on their privilege under the constitution of exporting their agricultural products without a tax. The congratulation is hollow. Of what use is it to go out free and come back manacled? The ultimate is always the return-service. The farmers are cheated. Their agricultural exports are falling off year by year solely in consequence of outrageous tariff-taxes on imports. In 1881, farmers' produce was exported to the amount of $730,394,943, and that was not one-half what it would have been under a simple and adequate Tariff for Revenues; but in 1889, these exports only reached $532,141,490, a falling off of nearly $200,000,000. This decline was chiefly in meats and breadstuffs. No wonder the farmers have been complaining of terribly hard times of late years: no wonder they are organizing "Alliances" and other machinery for reaching a remedy: they must see clearly first where the disease lies: the truth is, they are tariff-taxed to death: their foes are they of their own household: Vermont, a purely agricultural State, is the only one in the Union, that has actually retrograded in property and population in the last census-decade: those excellent people have hugged the Tariff-delusion to their ruin; their senior Senator, whose name is unpleasantly connected with the national tax-laws of a generation, has never yet in the course of a long and reputable life gained a glimmer of the commercial truth,—if men will not buy they can not sell.

(3) The only other clause of the Constitution, which, as students of Taxation, we are bound to examine, is the following: "No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken." A capitation tax is a poll-tax, which may be easily "proportioned" to the Census. It is not clear, what is the meaning of the words "or other direct tax"; the Supreme Court early struggled with that question, to this apparent result, that lands, as the only form of property that can be "proportioned" in their appraised value to population with any considerable degree of accuracy, are the only "other" subject of "direct" Taxation. However this may be, it is of considerable consequence to note, that the term, "direct tax," as used in the Constitution, does not correspond in its meaning to the significance of the same term as employed in Economics. With us, a "direct tax" means one demanded from and paid by the person on whom it is ostensibly levied, and cannot be thrown off or forward on anybody else; while an "indirect tax" is one which can be so thrown off or forward.

Attention is called to the distinction here, in order to show that an Income-tax, while in the Economical sense it is a "direct tax," is not such in the sense of the Constitution. Objections were urged against the late Income-tax in this country, that it was a "direct tax," and so, because it could not be proportioned to the population, was unconstitutional. The point is not well taken. It remains, and will remain, after the most searching scrutiny, that an universal Income-tax, all other taxes being abolished, is the form most consonant with the principles of Political Economy, and not at all repugnant to the Constitution of the United States.

15. Finally, are there any hints and guides to thought and legislation in the matter of Taxation through an extremely brief summary of the History of Taxes? So far as the Greeks are concerned, they showed a practical good sense in their laws of Property in general, and in their laws relating to Taxes in particular. The natural march of industry and commerce was not hindered by taxation: there was no forbidding the export of raw materials or specie; no favoring of manufactures at the expense of agriculture; no hint of the future Mercantilism in any efforts to preserve an artificial balance of trade; and no taxes on imports except for purposes of Revenue. These at Athens itself were usually 2% of the value of the goods, at the ports of her subject-allies 5%, and exceptional cases of higher rates than these were regarded as extortionate.

The Romans also were sensible and moderate in their modes of Taxation. They laid taxes for the sake of getting money for the public treasury, and had no other end in view. They knew nothing of what has since become famous under the name of "Protectionism." Their taxes were both direct and indirect, but especially the latter. The chief direct tax was the land-tax, that is, a claim to the tenth part of the sheaves and of other field produce, such as grapes and olives; and also pasture-money (scriptura) demanded of those who made use of the public pastures and woods. In Macedonia and the other larger Provinces, in lieu of the land-tax a fixed sum of money (tributum) was paid to Rome each year by each community in its own way. The grain-tenths and pasture-moneys were always farmed out to private contractors or companies on condition of their paying fixed quantities of grain or fixed sums of money. The chief indirect tax was customs-duties. There never was at any time a general tariff for the whole empire, but there were customs-districts, such as Italy, Sicily, proconsular Asia, the province of Narbo in Gaul, and others, each with a sort of tariff of its own, and some with special immunities. Goods imported by sea into Italy, for example, not for the personal use of the importer, were subject to a tax, which seems to have been mainly a tax on luxuries, since pepper, cinnamon, myrrh, ginger, perfumes, ivory and diamonds, are among the dutiable goods mentioned in one of these tariffs. Sicily had a tariff-tax quite distinct from this, since one-twentieth of the value of the goods (5%) was levied on the frontier on all imports and exports; and a similar tax of one-fortieth was laid by the Sempronian law on the province of Asia. These imposts, too, were leased to contractors, which gave, of course, some chance of fraud and wrong. There were other temporary taxes, like those, for instance, which Augustus laid of 5% on legacies and inheritances, and of 1% on articles publicly exposed for sale.

Green's History of England (I., 322 et seq.) gives an outline of the taxes there from the beginning of the monarchy. As land was almost the only source of salable things in the early time, so it was almost the only thing on which taxes were levied. Danegeld and scutage and feudal aids fastened only on the land. "But a new principle of taxation was disclosed in the tithe levied for a Crusade at the close of Henry Second's reign. Land was no longer the only source of wealth. The growth of national prosperity, of trade and commerce, was creating a mass of personal property which offered irresistible temptations to the Angevin financiers. No usage fettered the Crown in dealing with personal property, and its growth in value promised a growing revenue. Grants of from a seventh to a thirtieth of movables, household property, and stock were demanded. The right of the king to grant licenses to bring goods into or to trade within the realm, a right springing from the need of his protection, felt by the strangers who came there for purposes of traffic, laid the foundation for our taxes on imports. Those on exports were only a part of the general system of taxing personal property. How tempting this source of revenue was proving, we see from a provision of the Great Charter, which forbids the levy of more than the ancient customs on merchants entering or leaving the realm. Commerce was in fact growing with the growing wealth of the people." This passage shows, that, as a matter of fact, taxes have always hinged, and must hinge, on trade.

A few facts in the most recent movements of national Taxation in the United States may fitly conclude this Chapter and this Volume. Since 1867, Wool and Woollens have been the ass, upon whose breaking back the most conspicuous burdens have been piled; and the "McKinley Bill" so-called, still pending at the present writing in the Senate, heaps up still higher the groaning loads. The following table shows how futile is the attempt to keep out wools and woollens from such a country as ours, even by the most exaggerated barriers:—

Imports of Wools and Woollens.
(Calendar Years.)

Roger Q. Mills of Texas stated from his place in the House of Representatives in 1888, that the United States grows but about 265,000,000 lbs. of wool yearly, while it takes about 600,000,000 lbs. to clothe our own people. Why should more than half the wool needed to clothe the people be taxed in such a way as to double (in general) the cost of the people's clothing? And why should Benjamin Harrison, now President of the United States, have said in that same year, in view of these elsewhere unheard-of taxes, and in view of the average climate of his country, that somehow it seemed to him that cheap clothing implied a cheap man? In view of the enormous natural demand for woollens, in order to keep comfortable day and night 64,000,000 of inhabitants, is it not strange, and must there not be artificial causes for it in the kind and mode of national Taxation, that the United States has but 16 sheep to the square mile, while Germany has 92, France 111, and Great Britain 339?

Senator John Sherman stated in his place in August, 1888, and again in substance Sept. 2, 1890, that a line of custom-houses on our joint-frontier with Canada was "the height of nonsense, and almost a crime against civilization." Well might he say this in view of what his colleague, Allison of Iowa, has recently said, namely, that the Dominion bought in 1880 of the United States 8% of its brass goods, 86% of its copper manufactures, 94% of its cordage, 88% of its gingham, 65% of its glasswares, 99% of its rubber goods, 94% of its printing ink, 92% of wooden wares, 91% of tinware, 90% of wall-paper, 72% of paper wares, 98% of ploughs, 97% of engines, 99% of sewing-machines, and 90% of miscellaneous machinery.

The imports and exports of the United States for the last two fiscal years are as follows: —

There two or three noticeable points from this table. First, the large relative increase of free imports over those of former years. Free articles in 1867 were less than 5% of the whole; in 1882, 30%; and in 1890, 33.9%. The Free List, so-called, has indeed been enlarged in the interval, but free goods tend naturally to swell over the taxed goods, so that in 1890 the free were almost exactly one-half of the taxed. Second, of the large total of merchandise exports, it is to be sorrowfully noted, that more than 82% of the whole is made up of the products of agriculture and forests and mines (not gold and silver); while manufactures compose only 17.8%. What ails our manufactures, that we cannot sell them abroad? We have been for 30 years under a vaunted scheme warranted to develop manufactures,—expressly designed and recommended to make them cheap and good,—under an elaborate and artificial scheme that makes everything bend, even the backs of the toiling millions, to foster and propel manufactures! But we do not succeed in selling much of them abroad, except some fractions of them to Canada. The ratio of them to the total of exports of merchandise seems to be growing less: in 1889, 18.9%; in 1890, 17.8%.

The simple truth is, that we are able to sell abroad even this beggarly proportion of manufactures to the total exports of merchandise, only in consequence of a shrewd device working within the Grand Device, namely, the so-called "Free List." Some of the little wheels within the big wheel revolve rapidly. Manufacturers do not like to pay protectionist tariff-taxes themselves any better than other people like to pay them. They have by their own open confession in overt act precisely the same opinion of their deadening influence, that other people have. If, however, they can escape such taxes on the things they have to buy, especially their raw material, and keep them on their own finished goods offered for sale in a monopoly market, they would be happy. Hence, the Free List. Hear Senator Dawes before the Paper-makers' Convention at Saratoga in 1887: "There is one other feature of tariff revision much discussed at the present time which must not escape our attention, and that is free raw material. No industrial policy will promote the highest prosperity of both labor and capital in this country, which fails to lay down the raw material at the door of the manufactory at the lowest possible cost. In any new revision of the tariff this rule of preference for our own raw material must be adhered to by those who do not propose to give up the American for the indifferent policy in legislating between ourselves and foreigners. It will be found, however, to add very few raw materials to the free list, for the revisions of 1874 and 1883 have already made free all such non-competing raw materials as at the time of the passage of those acts were entering to any considerable extent into the consumption or production of the country."

Till now, we have been dealing in facts, and figures, and in careful generalizations after the inductive manner: let us, at the very last, indulge in a freak of fancy. Suppose for a moment, that all taxes of every name could be abolished instantaneously, and the Governments, like the Israelites, live on manna for forty years. What harm would ensue? What industry would decline? Who would be impoverished? What stimulus to work and save and grow rich would be weakened thereby? Would not wages, and profits, and rents, all be lifted thereby, with no damage to anybody? A child can see that Taxes from their very nature are a burden, are a subtraction from income, are a minus and not a plus. Who, then, except from sinister motives, can imagine and represent, that Taxes are a good in themselves, a positive blessing, a spur to the progress of Society?

Taxes of some sort there must be for the maintenance of Governments, which are established for the good of all. Why, then, should not the Taxes be just as few, just as simple, just as comprehensible, just as universal and equitable, as is consonant with the single end of their existence at all?