The National Intelligencer And Washington Advertiser

Heads of the government for the present year. You will observe that the secretary of the treasury calculates for a number of years; whereas the committee of ways and means calculate only for this year. Though, therefore, there may be resources enough for the present year; there will be a deficiency the next year, from the increasing installments of foreign debt.

I have made these remarks; because I think they clearly apply to the proposition before us; and because I think gentlemen should show us clearly and unequivocally that this measure is proper, before we are called upon to support it. I make this opposition, not because I have any objection to cutting down the expenses of the government. I have no interest against their retrenchment. I have never received, or expect to receive anything from the government.

I have also made these objections to account to my constituents for my voting against these articles distinctly, in order to effect a diminution of external duties, and relieve them from the unequal burden imposed upon them. But, as I before observed, if these motions are all rejected, I shall finally vote for the passage of the bill.

Mr. Varnum. It has been stated that the tax on carriages falls altogether on the opulent part of the community. But, as this observation applies to the state which I have the honor, in part, to represent on this floor, the statement is not founded in fact. In that state there are 4201 chaises and other two wheel carriages, on which is paid annually more than 12,000 dollars tax. The whole tax on carriages of all kinds in that state, is 14,696 dollars. The chaises and other two wheel carriages in that state, are by no means, extensively owned by the opulent; yet that description of carriages pays the principal part of the tax. There are in that state nearly six hundred clergymen, the principal part of them are owners of chaises; and such are their avocations that they cannot conveniently dispense with the use of them. But this class of citizens, although very justly held in high estimation, are very far from being in affluent circumstances: many other persons who are owners of that description of carriages, have been in the habit of attending public worship, at least once in a week since they have been on the stage of action; which from their local situation, and the infirmities of age, it would be extremely difficult for them to continue to do, if they should be deprived of that mode of conveyance; many of this description of citizens, are also, far from being in affluent circumstances. It is a fact, that the tax is a very unequal one, as it relates to the value of the property on which it is laid, and a burdensome one to many who pay it, especially to the clergy and the description last mentioned.

But, sir, there is another reason which operates in my mind against the motion, viz. the extreme inequality of the carriage tax as it applies to the individual states. The whole tax amounts to 77,871 dollars. Massachusetts pays 14,696 dollars of that sum, whereas she ought to pay but 10,284 dollars according to the constitutional mode of apportioning direct taxes, that state therefore, is compelled, by this mode of taxation, to pay at least, one quarter part more than her just proportion. Is that the case with the state of Connecticut, or South Carolina? No, sir, Connecticut pays considerably less than her proportion when compared with all the states; and not two thirds of her proportion, when compared with Massachusetts. She pays 4,564 dollars, and her proportion compared with Massachusetts would be 7,048 dollars. South Carolina pays 4,329 dollars; her proportion with Massachusetts would be 6041 dollars. If it is extremely difficult for gentlemen on this floor, as well as elsewhere, wholly to divest themselves of self, and the pecuniary interest of their constituents, will not this view of the subject, in some measure, account for the pertinacity of the gentleman last up from Connecticut, and the gentleman last up from South Carolina, on the question before you? But if these gentlemen are for continuing the tax on carriages, because it operates favorably to their constituents, it is to be hoped, the candor of the gentlemen will permit the members from Massachusetts, to vote in favor of the repeal of a tax, so apparently unequal and unjust, as it relates to that state. There is as great a disparity in the proportion of this tax paid by Massachusetts, when compared with Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee, as when compared with the other states which I have mentioned; but much to the honor of the gentlemen from those states, they are willing to repeal the tax, and equalize the public burden.

Mr. Speaker. I may be permitted to make one remark, relative to the repeal of all the internal taxes, contemplated by the bill under consideration. In the first place, it is an obvious fact, that they operate extremely unequal among the several states. Massachusetts alone has stood chargeable with nearly one fifth part of them, when taken all together, from their first introduction, up to this time. It will not, therefore, be thought improper in the members from that place, to solicit the repeal of so unequal, and so unjust a burden: But, sir, the high and satisfactory motive for a repeal, is derived from a firm belief, that they are no longer necessary. The retrenchments of the present session will be paramount to their product, and the remaining revenue will be amply sufficient to secure the public credit, and meet the exigencies of government. It is therefore to be hoped, that the motion for striking out carriages will be rejected, and, that the bill will be passed.