INCOME TAX.

Representatives from Georgia had been admitted to seats in Congress in July, 1868, under the Act of June 25th of that year; but the subsequent action of her Legislature in expelling its colored members and filling their places with whites, and the continued outrages upon loyalists, had the effect of preventing the admission of her Senators, and in the next Congress of excluding her from representation altogether,—involving the necessity of measures for her reconstruction and admission anew. The first of these was the Act of December 22, 1869, providing, among other things, for the reorganization of the State Legislature, by reinstating its colored members in their seats and purging it of its disloyal elements. To this succeeded a bill in the same terms with the Acts for the admission of Virginia and Mississippi, which was passed in the House with the following amendment, moved by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio:—“Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to vacate any of the offices now filled in the State of Georgia, either by the election of the people or by the appointment of the Governor thereof by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of said State; neither shall this Act be construed to extend the official term of any officer of said State beyond the term limited by the Constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such officer, nor to deprive the people of Georgia of the right under their Constitution to elect Senators and Representatives of the State of Georgia in the year 1870; but said election shall be held in the year 1870, either on the day named in the Constitution of said State or such other day as the present Legislature may designate by law.”In the Senate, after several days’ discussion of this proviso, as in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved a substitute of opposite character, as follows:—“Provided, That, in consequence of the failure of the General Assembly of Georgia to perfect a legal organization for a period of over eighteen months, it be, and hereby is, declared that the term of service of the said General Assembly shall date from the 26th of January, 1870, and shall continue until the persons to be chosen on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, 1872, as members of the General Assembly of said State, are qualified:Provided, That the last clause of the second subdivision of the first section of the third article of the Constitution of Georgia, in the following words, ‘The General Assembly may by law change the time of election, and the members shall hold until their successors are elected and qualified,’ shall never be by any Legislature exercised so as to extend the term of any office beyond the regular period named in the said Constitution; and the said General Assembly shall by joint resolution consent to this fundamental condition before this Act shall take effect.”April 5th, Mr. Sumner spoke on the pending question as follows:—

“Provided, That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to vacate any of the offices now filled in the State of Georgia, either by the election of the people or by the appointment of the Governor thereof by and with the advice and consent of the Senate of said State; neither shall this Act be construed to extend the official term of any officer of said State beyond the term limited by the Constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such officer, nor to deprive the people of Georgia of the right under their Constitution to elect Senators and Representatives of the State of Georgia in the year 1870; but said election shall be held in the year 1870, either on the day named in the Constitution of said State or such other day as the present Legislature may designate by law.”

In the Senate, after several days’ discussion of this proviso, as in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved a substitute of opposite character, as follows:—

“Provided, That, in consequence of the failure of the General Assembly of Georgia to perfect a legal organization for a period of over eighteen months, it be, and hereby is, declared that the term of service of the said General Assembly shall date from the 26th of January, 1870, and shall continue until the persons to be chosen on the Tuesday after the first Monday of November, 1872, as members of the General Assembly of said State, are qualified:Provided, That the last clause of the second subdivision of the first section of the third article of the Constitution of Georgia, in the following words, ‘The General Assembly may by law change the time of election, and the members shall hold until their successors are elected and qualified,’ shall never be by any Legislature exercised so as to extend the term of any office beyond the regular period named in the said Constitution; and the said General Assembly shall by joint resolution consent to this fundamental condition before this Act shall take effect.”

April 5th, Mr. Sumner spoke on the pending question as follows:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—Whatever its result, this debate will be ever memorable. For the first time the African has pleaded in this Chamber.[6]But the curious observer cannot fail to note that he was obliged to plead still for his long-oppressed race. The Senator from Mississippi sits among us, and speaks; but the battle is not yet won. Slavery still asserts her ancient predominance, finding strange voices. No longer is the claim made directly. Nothing is said of Slavery, but the old cause is defended under analias. It is now State Rights which are invoked, or it may be alleged irregularities,—as if State Rights or any irregularities could prevail against the sovereign duty of Congress to see that Georgia is so organized that good people shall be protected in their rights. To this end all else must be tributary, while every pretext of State Rights and every allegation of irregularity are of less consequence than the breath with which they are urged.

It is sad that the Senator from Mississippi should bedoomed to encounter this spirit. As he entered the Chamber, the evil genius should have departed; but it is not so. And strange to say, the voices by which it has spoken have been the voices of friends. But so it has been always. How often in other days have the opponents of Slavery been saddened by encountering the voices of friends! The argument of technicality is always at hand, as the well-seasoned weapon of the lawyer,—and this debate is no exception.

I had hoped that this question would be decided without debate, at least on our side,—in short, that all would appreciate the exigency, and unite harmoniously in applying the remedy. I am disappointed. But I shall say very little. Feeling as strongly as I do, and seeing the way as clearly as I do, I cannot be entirely silent.

The case is very simple. From unquestionable evidence it appears that Georgia, while still in transition from the old to the new, while still in process of Reconstruction, and before the work is completed, has lapsed into a condition of insecurity and uncertainty, so that, without the intervention of Congress, the people cannot be assured in the enjoyment of their rights.

This is the broad statement, which is confirmed by the present as well as the past. By an unparalleled audacity colored citizens were expelled from the Legislature simply on account of color, while the orgies of the Ku-Klux-Klan prevailed throughout the State. And now this same Ku-Klux-Klan continues its terrors, while former Rebels threaten to regain their pernicious power. The State is in peril. I do not use too strong language. All evidence is at fault, if it be not as I say. To allow these Rebels to prevail is to sacrifice Reconstruction,and to offer up the Unionists, white and black. It is to do a deed of shame and desertion. Are you ready for this degradation? Shall Congress descend to this vileness?

Again I use strong language; but only in this way can I picture the enormity which is now proposed. Among national obligations which cannot be declined or postponed, and which rest primarily on Congress, is the duty of protecting Reconstruction.Show that Reconstruction is in peril, and you must act.Now that it is in peril there can be no question. Concurring testimony from opposite quarters, public acts, and open menace, all attest the condition of Georgia. Others in this debate have entered into details. I give you the irresistible, unanswerable conclusion.

And here occurs the Bingham Amendment, which, however intended, is only an engine of Rebel power. This is its true character, and nothing else. Howsoever it may seem, it must be regarded in its consequences. We must look from the word to the thing. It is not enough to see how it reads; we must see how it works. According to its text, the present Legislature, whose natural existence has been changed by wrongful addition and wrongful subtraction proceeding directly from the old Rebellion, is terminated at a specified day in the coming autumn, and a new election is ordered, without taking into consideration the past or the future,—without considering that thus far it has sat as a provisional Legislature only, although chosen to sit under the State Constitution,—without considering how it has been despoiled of its legislative character and just rights by hostile influence, and how a new election will be a direct appeal to this same hostile influence, giving toit a letter of license and unloosing the Ku-Klux-Klan. The Bingham Amendment is in few words, but they are words of despair to the loyal men of Georgia, and words of cheer to the disloyal.

I have listened to the arguments in its favor. Do I mistake, when I say that they all resolve themselves into technicality? At one moment we have allegations of “irregularity,” and at another of “estoppel”; and such technicalities play their part, while the good people of Georgia are sacrificed. We are estopped, so it is said, by the Act of December 22, 1869, which, failing to provide for the re-performance of certain conditions-precedent, recognized the validity of the legislative acts by which they had been performed. Very well,—suppose the legislative acts are recognized as valid, what then? Because the ratification of the Constitutional Amendments is recognized, does it follow that Congress is thereby “estopped”—such is the word—in completing the work of Reconstruction? I cannot comprehend this reasoning. It would be of value in a county court, but it is out of place in the Senate of the United States, on a question of Reconstruction. To my mind, all this is a matter of supreme indifference. The powers of Congress are above any such incident, and nothing has occurred to impair them in any way. They exist now as at the beginning, awaiting the discretion of Congress.

Do you ask where these powers are found? Of course, in the two Constitutional Amendments already proclaimed,—being ample sources, if none others existed. Out of these Congress is authorized to do all that is needed to enforce Emancipation and to protect the rights of the citizen. This is plain, very plain.

But there are three other sources, each of which is overflowing. The first is from the necessity of the case,ex necessitate rei. This is one of the grounds on which Chief-Justice Marshall asserted the power of Congress over the Territories;[7]but it is equally applicable in the work of Reconstruction. From the necessity of the case this power must be in Congress, as without it Reconstruction could not be completed. You must renounce Reconstruction or recognize this power.

Then comes the “guaranty” clause, which is another bountiful, all-sufficient fountain. The United States are to guaranty a republican form of government to the States. But this guaranty can be executed only through Congress. This clause is at once old and new. It is old as the Constitution itself, but it is new in its practical exercise. And the reason is obvious. So long as Slavery prevailed, this mighty power slept; but it was the sleep of a giant. At last it has awaked, never again to sleep or slumber. From this time forward the duty of the nation to guaranty a republican government to all its parts will be constant and ever-present; and this duty is reinforced by all needful powers. The guaranty is continuing and perpetual, and it must be executed at all hazards. In its execution Congress must fix the definition of a republican government. How often have I said this!—but I shall not fail to repeat it so long as the occasion requires. To Congress belongs the duty of determining what is a republican government, and then it must see that such a government prevails in every State.

If in any State the existing government fails according to the just standard, or if it is in any way menaced,then must Congress interfere to execute the sleepless guaranty. And in this interference it may act according to its discretion, determining the occasion and the “means” to be employed. It may act by repression or by precaution, and it may select any “means” proper for the purpose. To say that it may not act by precaution as well as by repression is contrary to reason, and I may say to common sense. Whatever may be done by repression may be done by precaution also. Such is the experience of life in other things, and this obligation of guaranty is subject to the universal law. In the selection of “means” the whole field and the whole arsenal are at its command. Not an instrument, not a weapon, proper for the purpose, which it may not grasp. Here the language of Chief-Justice Marshall, so often quoted, harmonizes with the claim of power which I now make:—

“The Government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those who contend that it may not select any appropriate means, that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception.”[8]

In our recent debates able Senators have denied everything. They will not concede the “means”; and they even ignore this great clause, which, as Cicero said of the ancientSenatusconsultum, has rested so long like a sword in its scabbard.[9]But there it is. Senatorsmay ignore it; they may not see it; but there it is in the Constitution. In attempting to belittle this clause Senators only show how little they appreciate the lofty unity of the Republic. Other clauses are important in the machinery of government; but this guaranty makes the Republic one and indivisible, being One out of Many, and places the rights of all under the protecting power of the nation.

Before the extinction of Slavery, State Rights were successful against this guaranty. To invoke this tyrannical pretension was enough. How often was it heard on this floor! How completely did it dominate the Constitution itself! But the habit still continues, and we are still compelled to hear this same pretension, under which Statesplayed the turtle, drawing head, legs, and tail all within an impenetrable shell. With the overthrow of the Rebellion on the bloody field this pretension should have been abandoned and forgotten. A State is not a turtle, which can shut itself within its shell, and enjoy its own separate animal existence; but it is a component part of this great Republic, with which it is interlaced and interlocked so as to share with every other State a common life, subject to one and the same prevailing law. To insist that a State can play the turtle now, as in the days when Slavery ruled, is to dishonor the Constitution, and to abandon the crowning victory over the Rebellion.

Do you ask for the power in the Constitution to enter into a State and establish republican government? I give it to you in an immortal text. To question it is to show an ignorance of language which in this case is clear beyond criticism, and an ignorance also of the true genius of American institutions, where unity ofrights is the Alpha and the Omega. The national motto,E Pluribus Unum, is another expression of that great unity by which the States are lost in the Nation. And this guaranty I now invoke for the protection of the good people of Georgia, and for the protection hereafter of Human Rights, when imperilled anywhere within the limits of the Republic.

But there are other and exceptional reasons why Georgia is still within the control of Congress. The process of Reconstruction in this State is not yet completed; so that the government there is simply provisional, and nothing else. This is only according to the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, where it is provided,—

“That, until the people of said Rebel States shall beby lawadmitted to representation in the Congress of the United States,any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.”[10]

Nothing can be more explicit. Until the people of the Rebel States are “by law” admitted to representation, they are under the power of Congress. Everything done is inchoate, and nothing more. But Georgia is not yet “by law” admitted to representation, and we are now considering when and how such admission shall take place. Meanwhile, according to express language of the Act, the government is “provisional only.” Nor is this all; for the Act proceeds to declare further that this government is“in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same.” Words cannot be stronger. “Abolish,” “modify,” “control,” “supersede.” To argue against their plain meaning is simply ridiculous. To insist that the existing government is beyond the reach of Congress, to be extended or abridged, to be recognized or superseded in its discretion, is preposterous. The power is reserved in terms almost excessive in fulness. Therefore do I say there can be no question of power on the present occasion. As well question that the sun shines or the river flows.

There being no question of power, there arises, then, the obligation of duty. Congress has the power to protect republican institutions in Georgia, and to protect the good people there; and it has the further power to superintend the work of Reconstruction to the end. All this it must do. It cannot abandon the appointed work. Of course it will ascertain the exact condition of things, and will then apply the remedy. No excuse of State Rights, no fine-spun technicality, no plea of irregularity, no argument of “estoppel” can be heard. All these are trivial and unworthy against the commanding duty. Georgia must be saved to herself and to the Union, and Congress must supply the means.

Several courses are open to Congress, and all equally within its powers; for all are derived from the same fountains.

1. Georgia may be remanded for an indefinite period to a condition like that of the Territories, subordinate in all respects to the jurisdiction of Congress, which may meanwhile mould it into loyalty and order.

2. Or the State may be subjected to a military government, until such time as it is fit in every respect for self-government.

3. Or the existing provisional government may be invested with the powers of the State, in such form and way and for such term as Congress in its discretion shall think best.

I doubt not that there are other modes within the jurisdiction of Congress; but these are all contained substantially in the three I have named.

It is not now proposed to remand Georgia to a territorial condition, or to subject the State to a military government. But it is proposed to place it in charge of the existing provisional government, which is to continue for a full constitutional term; and this is done as the best way of guarding against disturbing forces from the late Rebellion. It is said that this will be sufficient. I hope that it may be. I am satisfied that it is the least Congress can do in the exigency. Anything short of this will be the betrayal of those who have a right to our protection.

Against this simple and moderate proposition is interposed the Bingham Amendment, which, however plausible in form, is destructive in consequence. It is enough that it hands over the State to misrule and violence. Senators, how can you do this thing? How can you hesitate to take every heed and precaution against even the possibility of such an occurrence? You have the power. Then must you exercise it. In the recent history of Georgia nothing can be adduced to make you hesitate. On the contrary, all things, when properly understood, conspire to constrain the exercise of this power.

How feeble is the argument, that,becauseGovernor Bullock was chosen Governor and the Legislature commenced its session at a given date now past, therefore in this process of Reconstruction the constitutional termof the Governor and of the Legislature must be limited to two years from that date! Besides ignoring all the controlling powers of Congress, this assumption ignores also the conduct of this very Legislature by which its organization was for a while defeated. Nothing is clearer than that the termination of the provisional government in Georgia was contingent on the performance of certain covenants, express and implied. These covenants have been outrageously violated. The very form of government underwent a change when persons clearly ineligible from disloyalty were allowed to take part in it, while citizens entitled to equal rights, and especially protected by the Reconstruction Laws, were tyrannically ejected from the Legislature. There was for the time being a usurpation. Had this violation of underlying covenants been anticipated, Reconstruction would have been postponed. No Senator will pretend the contrary. But Congress, in view of what has occurred, may justly do what it would have done, had it anticipated the result. It may postpone Reconstruction,—treating the Legislature meanwhile as provisional, and recognizing its acts only so far as in the judgment of Congress they are fit to be recognized.

If instruction be needed on this point, it will be found in the authoritative words of publicists, showing how even the terms of a treaty may be disregarded where there has been a change in the form of government.

Thus, Vattel does not hesitate to say,—

“It may say, upon a good foundation, that it would not have entered into an alliance with that nation, had it been under the present form of government.”[11]

One of our own publicists, Alexander Hamilton, has dealt with the same question in congenial language:—

“Contracts between nations, as between individuals, must lose their force where the considerations fail.“A treaty pernicious to the state is of itself void, where no change in the situation of either of the parties takes place. By a much stronger reason it must become voidable at the option of the other party, when the voluntary act of one of the allies has made so material a change in thecondition of thingsas is always implied in a radical revolution of government.”[12]

“Contracts between nations, as between individuals, must lose their force where the considerations fail.

“A treaty pernicious to the state is of itself void, where no change in the situation of either of the parties takes place. By a much stronger reason it must become voidable at the option of the other party, when the voluntary act of one of the allies has made so material a change in thecondition of thingsas is always implied in a radical revolution of government.”[12]

We but follow the simple principles of these texts, when we declare that the outrage perpetrated in Georgia so far changed the condition of things that the Legislature lost all title to recognition by Congress. It ceased to be the Legislature contemplated by Congress. Nor was it the first regular Legislature contemplated by the State Constitution. It was irregular, abnormal, revolutionary. To recognize such a body as the first regular Legislature is a fraud on the State Constitution. To insist that members chosen as the first regular Legislature shall be treated as provisional only is unjust to them. To insist that such members shall be despoiled of the regular term is a direct surrender to the disorganizers, who will rejoice to see Congress sacrifice the true men to whom it owes protection. To my mind there can be no surer rule than so to act that these disorganizers shall not rejoice. Especially will I not please them at the expense of patriot citizens.

In the exercise of this power Congress is acting onprinciples of Equity. And here allow me to say, that, in superintending the process of Reconstruction, Congress is a Court of Equity, bound to supply deficiencies in the existing law, to enjoin against threatened wrong, and generally to see justice done in spite of technicalities. Here I only follow the best definitions of Equity from the earliest times. No student can forget that profound definition by Aristotle,[13]adopted by Grotius[14]also,—“Equity is the correction of that wherein the law by reason of its universality is deficient”; nor can he forget the phrase of Lord Bacon, when he gives it a higher character still, namely, “The general conscience of the realm, which is Chancery.”[15]These two philosophers were each right; for Equity is at once a correction of law and the voice of conscience. In conformity with these principles, an ample jurisdiction has been established, under which, among other things, the powers of ordinary courts are supplemented by more flexile methods, the rules of law are prevented from becoming instruments of injustice, persons are restrained from asserting doubtful rights in a manner productive of irreparable damage, and, in the absence of positive law, universal justice is maintained. It has been a constant aspiration to bring Law and Equity into harmony. Lord Chancellor Eldon relates that on one occasion Lord Chief-Justice De Grey said, he “never liked Equity so well as when it was like Law”; and he adds,“The day before I heard Lord Mansfield say he never liked Law so well as when it was like Equity.”[16]In the same spirit, Bishop Burnet says of Sir Matthew Hale:—

“As great a lawyer as he was, he would never suffer the strictness of law to prevail against conscience; as great a chancellor as he was, he would make use of all the niceties and subtilties in law, when it tended to support right and equity.”[17]

Such is Equity, and such are the principles which preside in its courts. No strictness of law can prevail against conscience. The niceties and subtilties of law are all to be used in support of right and equity. These noble and authoritative rules are a pathway of light. Against all strictness of law conscience must prevail. If there are niceties and subtilties in the law, let them all be employed on the side of right and equity. That is according to reason and the harmonies of the Universe. It is Equity.

Am I not right, when I now insist that Congress is a High Court of Equity with Georgia at its bar? It only remains that it should apply the principles of Equity, especially supplying deficiencies in the existing law, enjoining against threatened wrong, and seeing that justice is done,—all technicalities to the contrary notwithstanding. Against all strictness of law conscience must prevail; and if there are niceties and subtilties in the law, they must all minister to the completion of Reconstruction. To this end, the process of Congress must go forth in such form as will best establish peace and security in that State under the safeguard of equal laws. With the execution of this process Georgia will be a republican government in reality as in name.

The assertion of this power is necessary now, not merely for Georgia, where it will bring peace and security, but also for the Nation, which will be elevated in character and strengthened in that unity against which the Rebellion dashed itself in battle. An ancient sage has left in perpetual testimony, that the best government is where an injury to a single citizen is redressed as an injury to the whole nation. In harmony with the saying of the sage is the fundamental law that protection and allegiance are reciprocal, so that the Nation owes protection in exchange for the allegiance it receives. The duties of the Nation are correlative with the duties of the citizen. Are we a Nation? Surely we are not, if any State can without correction deny Equal Rights within its border, or in any way imperil the tranquillity of the Republic. There was a time when all this might be done with impunity,—when a State was permitted to exalt itself above the Nation,—when a State determined for itself the standard of Human Rights,—when there was one rule of citizenship at Boston and another at New Orleans, and as many different rules as there were States,—when State Rights were made the protection for all that a State chose to do, and the turtle, with its impenetrable shell, was the prototype of a political community constituting part of the Nation. But this time has passed. A State can no longer play the turtle; State Rights have ceased to be a protection for all that a State inclines to do; there can be but one rule of citizenship in all the States, being the same in Boston and New Orleans; no State can determine for itself the standard of Human Rights; no State can exalt itself above the Nation; nor can any State without correction deny EqualRights within its borders, or in any way imperil the tranquillity of the Republic. The judgments of courts, the arguments of Senators, with all possible learning and all possible skill, are impotent against that prevailing law which places the National Unity and the Equal Rights of All beneath the safeguard of the Nation. There they will remain from this time forevermore, making the Republic more than ever an example to mankind.

After various amendments, the bill was finally taken into a new draft, leaving the questions presented in the Bingham Amendment to the determination of the State Constitution, and in this form passed both Houses without a division.

Remarks in the Senate, April 7, 1870.

The Senate having under consideration a Joint Resolution from the House, with an amendment by the Committee on Finance, declaratory of the meaning and intention of the law relating to the Income Tax, Mr. Sumner said,—

I shall make no opposition to the amendment of the Committee on Finance, as I understand it is to relieve the Department from a difficulty which has arisen in the interpretation of a statute; but I desire to say now—and I take this earliest opportunity—that I think the income tax ought not to be continued any longer.

Mr. Conkling[of New York]. Reëstablished, you mean.

Mr. Sumner.Very well; I accept the amendment of the Senator from New York: it ought not to be reëstablished.

Mr. Scott[of Pennsylvania]. It has expired.

Mr. Sumner.It has expired. There was an understanding, when it was established, that it should live only into the year 1870. It has now reached its natural death, and no resurrection ought to operate upon it. An income tax is a war tax. It ought not to be madea peace tax. “The medicine of the Constitution should not become its daily bread.” I am against the continuance of this tax; and if the occasion required, I would go forward and assign reasons. But I am unwilling now to enter into any general discussion of the question, as it is not directly presented by the proposition before the Senate; but I hope the Senator from Ohio [Mr.Sherman], who has charge of this bill, and is Chairman of the Finance Committee, will bear in mind the radical objection to any reëstablishment of this tax, and will also bear in mind another important proposition,—that the taxes of the country must be reduced. I have on another occasion, and more than once, said, “Down with the taxes!”—and I repeat the cry now. We cannot do better than to begin with a tax inequitable in its operation, and which, according to the original understanding when first adopted, was to end now.

After further debate, in which different Senators participated, Mr. Sumner spoke again, as follows:—

Mr. President,—I should not have said another word but for the very confident statement made by my friend, the Senator from Ohio, that at a proper time he will show the fairness of this tax. Sir, if he can show its fairness, he will do what no person before him has ever been able to do,—what no speaker in Parliament, no speaker in Congress, no writer on taxation or political economy has ever been able to accomplish. The Senator assumes in advance a very considerable task. Let me commend him to the candid, absolutely impartial, and authoritative words of Mr. McCulloch, in his work on Taxation and Funding. We all know the authority of this writer; none better canbe adduced. A committee of this body might be well satisfied, could it have the sanction of this writer. Now what does he say of the tax on income? One would think he had listened to my honorable friend on this question. Of its effects he says:—

“It would no doubt have the supposed effects, [i. e.be successful,] could it be fairly assessed. But the practical difficulties in the way of its fair assessment are not of a sort that can be overcome. And the truth is, that taxes on income, though theoretically equal, are in their practical operation most unequal and vexatious.”[18]

Mr. Sherman.Read the paragraph immediately before that, in which he speaks of the theory of an income tax.

Mr. Sumner.I should rather read a paragraph after it, with the permission of the Senator. [Laughter.] I have read the chapter, and I understand it; and there are words here to which I call the attention of my friend:—

“After the Legislature has done all that can be done to make it equal, it will be most unequal.”

Strong language that!

“To impose it only on certain classes of incomes, or to impose it on all incomes, without regard to their origin, is alike subversive of sound principle. Nothing, therefore, remains but to reject it, or to resort to it only when money must be had at all hazards, when the ordinary and less exceptionable means of filling the public coffers have been tried and exhausted, and when, as during the late war, Hannibal is knocking at your gates, and national independence must be secured at whatever cost. An unreasoning necessity of this sort is the only satisfactory justification of taxes on property and income.”[19]

This is the voice of Science. It is not the voice of a political partisan, or of the representative of any Administration anxious to establish a system of taxation, but it is the voice of Science itself, speaking by one of its—I may say chosen authorities. How can this testimony be answered? If you come back to an authority of a different character, take a statesman. The Senator from California [Mr.Casserly] has referred to Sir Robert Peel, who is known as the modern author of the income tax; but he has left his testimony behind. I quote words from different speeches, showing how he has characterized it. He admitted that it was “a tax which had hitherto been reserved for time of war”; and that “the question of its imposition was, whether the political necessity was of such magnitude and urgency as to justify it”; and then that it “ought to be accompanied by measures of simultaneous relief.” Then, “he did not deny that it was an inquisitorial tax”; and again, that “a certain degree of inquisitorial scrutiny was inseparable from an income tax”; and further, that “a good deal of inconvenience inevitably arose from the inquiries that must be instituted into the properties of men, in the imposition of an income tax”; moreover, that “one great objection to the income tax was, that it fell with peculiar severity upon those who were determined to act honestly.”[20]

In harmony with his testimony is that also of Mr. Gladstone, named by the two Senators who have preceded me. The Senator from Ohio reminds us that Mr. Gladstone has sustained an income tax. Have we not all sustained an income tax?

Mr.Sherman. He does it this very year.

Mr. Sumner.This very year, and why? The Senator knows perfectly how England is pressed by taxation,—how difficult it is to find objects for taxation in order to meet the great demands upon her exchequer. He knows that England is obliged now, in time of peace, to meet the responsibilities of war. It is on account of that terrible war debt which still hangs over her, the interest of which must be annually paid, that she is obliged to assume even in a period of peace this responsibility. I think we are in no such condition. Our war is happily over, and I know no reason why the responsibilities and obligations assumed during that period should be prolonged now during the reign of peace. Sir, let us put an end to the war. And I know no better way to give our testimony to the end of the war than by stopping that taxation which was born of the war.

Letter to the American Antislavery Society at its Final Meeting, April 8, 1870.

Senate Chamber, April 8, 1870.GENTLEMEN,—You propose to celebrate the triumph of Equal Rights at the ballot-box, and at the same time to abandon that famous shibboleth by which you once rallied the country against Slavery.It was said of Wolfe, the conqueror at Quebec, that he died in the arms of Victory; and such will be the fortune of your noble Society. “They run!” was the voice that fell on the ears of the expiring General. “Who run?” he exclaimed. “The enemy,” was the answer. “Now, God be praised, I shall die in peace,” said he, and his battle ended.The Antislavery Society may now die in peace. Slavery is ended. But I do not doubt that the same courage and fidelity which through long years warred against this prodigious Barbarism will continue determined to the end in protecting and advancing the work begun.I do not think the work finished, so long as the word “white” is allowed to play any part in legislation,—so long as it constrains the courts in naturalization,—so long as it rules public conveyances, steamboats, and railroads,—so long as it bars the doors of houses bound by law to receive people for food and lodging, or licensed as places of amusement,—so long as it is inscribed on ourcommon schools;—nor do I think the work finished until the power of the Nation is recognized, supreme and beyond question, to fix the definition of a “republican government,” and to enforce the same by the perfect maintenance of rights everywhere throughout the land, according to the promises of the Declaration of Independence, without any check or hindrance from the old proslavery pretension of State Rights. It must be understood that every State, while perfectly free in its local administration, is subject to the supremacy of the Nation, whenever it touches the Rights of Man,—so that, according to the ancient words of Demosthenes, the law shall be “a general ordinance,equal and alike to all.”[21]Let there be Equality before the Law, and all rights are assured. In this cause count me always as your devoted and grateful fellow-worker.Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored me, and believe me sincerely yours,Charles Sumner.To the Committee of the Antislavery Society.

Senate Chamber, April 8, 1870.

GENTLEMEN,—You propose to celebrate the triumph of Equal Rights at the ballot-box, and at the same time to abandon that famous shibboleth by which you once rallied the country against Slavery.

It was said of Wolfe, the conqueror at Quebec, that he died in the arms of Victory; and such will be the fortune of your noble Society. “They run!” was the voice that fell on the ears of the expiring General. “Who run?” he exclaimed. “The enemy,” was the answer. “Now, God be praised, I shall die in peace,” said he, and his battle ended.

The Antislavery Society may now die in peace. Slavery is ended. But I do not doubt that the same courage and fidelity which through long years warred against this prodigious Barbarism will continue determined to the end in protecting and advancing the work begun.

I do not think the work finished, so long as the word “white” is allowed to play any part in legislation,—so long as it constrains the courts in naturalization,—so long as it rules public conveyances, steamboats, and railroads,—so long as it bars the doors of houses bound by law to receive people for food and lodging, or licensed as places of amusement,—so long as it is inscribed on ourcommon schools;—nor do I think the work finished until the power of the Nation is recognized, supreme and beyond question, to fix the definition of a “republican government,” and to enforce the same by the perfect maintenance of rights everywhere throughout the land, according to the promises of the Declaration of Independence, without any check or hindrance from the old proslavery pretension of State Rights. It must be understood that every State, while perfectly free in its local administration, is subject to the supremacy of the Nation, whenever it touches the Rights of Man,—so that, according to the ancient words of Demosthenes, the law shall be “a general ordinance,equal and alike to all.”[21]Let there be Equality before the Law, and all rights are assured. In this cause count me always as your devoted and grateful fellow-worker.

Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored me, and believe me sincerely yours,

Charles Sumner.

To the Committee of the Antislavery Society.

Remarks in the Senate, May 9, 1870.

The question being on an amendment to the Legislative Appropriation Bill, reducing the appropriation for the Bureau of Education from $14,500 to $5,400, in conformity with a previous reduction of the clerical force, Mr. Sumner said:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—I hope there may be no hesitation in refusing to agree to this amendment. It seems to me that the House of Representatives has acted wisely in increasing the appropriation, and we shall act very unwisely, if we fail to unite with the House. We, Sir, are a Republic; we are living under republican institutions; and, as I understand them, one of their essential elements is Education. Now, Sir, here is an agency associated with the National Government, having education for its object; and what is the appropriation proposed by our excellent committee? It is $5,400: that is all. Looking on the opposite page of the bill, I find an appropriation of $9,000 for stationery, furniture, and books for the Interior Department; I find an appropriation of $16,000 for fuel and lights for the Interior Department; and yet we propose to give only $5,400 to create and support a Bureau of Education! Sir, is that decent? It seems to me, in this age, at this period of our history, when more than ever we are beginning to see the transcendent advantage of education, how much we owe to light,—

“Hail, holy light!”—

it seems to me strange that we should now cut down the appropriation for the Bureau of Education. Turning on, I come to the Department of Agriculture, and there I find an appropriation of $72,170; and then I turn back again to the $5,400 for the Bureau of Education. I think the House did not go far enough, when it made the appropriation $14,500. I would make the appropriation as large as that for the Agricultural Department; and I know full well the period is at hand when all of you will rejoice to make an appropriation for the Educational Bureau twice more than that for the Agricultural Department.

As to the question whether there is any existing statute to sanction this appropriation, I dismiss it entirely. It is merely a technicality; and it ought not now, on this Appropriation Bill, at this stage, after the vote of the House, to be allowed to stand in the way.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, supported the amendment as a step toward the abolition of the Bureau, which he regarded as useless,—at the same time urging the withdrawal, for consideration in a full Senate, of a proviso, just voted, for the restoration of the original clerical force; and it being thereupon suggested that the whole matter be passed over till the next day, Mr. Sumner said:—

Before that passes away, I wish to make one comment on a single word of the Senator from Ohio. The Senator said that he hoped we should take no backward step; and yet his speech and his proposition were a backward step. Sir, there is nothing that any State or any nation can do for education that is not for civilization itself; and now the Senator from Ohio is against appropriating a paltry sum of $10,000 for education.

Back to Index Next