the sake of employing other men to torment him, and deprive him of his dearest rights.

It is very frequently asserted, that public expenditure enriches a country, or that, at least, it is wholly innocent, since it quickens the circulation of money, and does.no harm, inasmuch as all the money always remains in the country. To obviate such an objection, let us trace, from first to last, the passage of a product towards ultimate consumption, on the public account. The government exacts from the tax payer, the payment of a given sum in the shape of money. To meet this demand, the tax payer exchanges part of the products at his disposal, for coin, which he pays to the tax gatherer. A second set of government agents is busied, in buying, with that coin, clothing and other necessaries for soldiery. Up to this point, there is no value either lost or consumed; there has only been a gratuitous transfer of value and a subsequent act of barter, but, the value contributed by the citizen, still exists in the shape of stores and supplies in the military depot. In the end, however, this value is consumed, and then the portion of wealth which passes from the hands of the tax payer, into those of the tax gatherer, is destroyed and annihilated.

"Yet, it is not the sum of money, that is destroyed; that has only passed from one hand to another, either with or without any return, as, when it passed from the tax payer to the tax gather; or in exchange for an equivalent, as when it passed from the government agent to the contractor, for clothing and supplies. The value of the money survives the whole operation, and goes through three or four, or a dozen hands, without any sensible alteration. It is the value of the clothing and necessaries that disappears, with precisely the same effect, as if the tax payer had, with the same money, purchased clothing and necessaries for his own private consumption."*

The consumption, then, is of the same nature, whether it be public or private. It is a destruction of value, and the rule by which we are to determine, whether it be profitable or unprofitable is the same, in both cases. It is, by inquiring, whether the benefit created by the consumption, is greater than, equal to, or less than, the value of the product consumed.

While, however, this rule is always to be adopted, it is, as in the case of individual consumption, to be interpreted with a liberal and intelligent forecast. It must not, of course, always be expected, that the product created by consumption, will be a visible, tangible, material substance. Thus, we see no physical, tangible product, as the result of taxes for the support of civil government. But, we receive the benefit in security of person, property and reputation; or in that condition of society, which, though it be incapable of being weighed and measured, is absolutely essential both to individual happiness, and individual accumulation. The same may be said in substance, concerning the taxes paid for general education. Here, whether the tax payer receive his remuneration in instruction given to his own children, or not, he yet receives it, in the improvement of the intellectual and social character of his neighbors, by which his property is rendered more secure, the labor for which he pays is better performed, and the demand for whatever he produces, is more universal and more constant. The same may be said of that public expenditure, by which the moral and social character of a community is elevated, the taste of a nation refined, and an impulse given to efforts for the benefit of man. With this

view, no one could oppose the expense incurred in bestowing upon public edifices elegance, or even, in some cases, magnificence of structure; in the public celebration of remarkable eras; and in the rewards bestowed upon those who have by their discoveries enlarged the boundaries of human knowl

edge, or by their inventions, signally improved the useful arts. Political Economy is opposed to none of these forms of expenditure; all that she requires is, that a valuable consideration be received in return for the consumption; and that the consumption be not disproportionate to that consideration.

Of the different modes by which the public expenditure is provided for.

Taxes are of two kinds, direct and indirect.

A direct tax, is a certain amount assessed upon every individual, in proportion to the property which he is known to possess. In many of the towns of New England, an annual tax list is made out, in which the portion which every taxable inhabitant must pay towards supporting the expenses of the district, is specified. The apportionment is made out by persons appointed for the purpose, called assessors. If any individual consider himself as taxed too highly, he is at liberty to appear, and declare upon oath, the amount of property of which he is possessed. His assessment is then graduated, according to the amount to which he has sworn.

An indirect tax, is levied upon articles of production, at some period during their passage from one possessor to another. Thus a tax, or as it is called a duty, is laid by this country on various goods imported from abroad, immediately on their arrival. This duty is paid by the merchant who receives them; and he adds this duty to the cost of the goods, when he sells them to the next purchaser. Thus, the price of the product is raised, by this amount, when it comes into the hands of the consumer. If broadcloth pay a duty of two dollars a yard, he who buys a yard of broadcloth pays two dollars a yard more for it than he would pay if there were no duty to be paid. If coal be taxed two dollars a ton, as it is at present, every consumer of foreign coal pays two dollars a ton more than he would pay if no such tax were exacted. The effect of this

tax is also to keep the price of all other coal two dollars a ton higher than it would otherwise be.

Now, supposing the same sum were to be demanded for the service of the public, it may be asked, which mode of raising it is to be preferred.

In favor of an indirect tax it may be urged, that it is raised with more convenience, and less liability to personal collision, between the tax payer and the tax gatherer.

The imports of a country are all received at a comparatively small number of places, denominated ports of entry. Goods arriving at these places are all charged with the duty on their arrival; and thus, the collection may all be accomplished in a short time, and with very little trouble. Besides, as the importer, who pays the duty, receives it back again from the purchaser of the goods, it seems to him a matter of small importance, whether it be high or low, and he is disposed to make but little trouble about it. The case is the same with every succeeding purchaser, until it comes at last to the consumer. The consumer may feel, that the product is dear, but if it be no dearer than he has always paid, he thinks but little about it; and, if it be somewhat dearer than formerly, the rise and fall in the price of goods is so common a thing, that he imputes the difference to any other cause, as soon as to the addi tional duty paid to the government. Hence, it is frequently said, that people do not feel an indirect tax, which means, I suppose, that they do not know, either how much they pay, or when they pay, or whether they pay or not.

On the contrary, it is, doubtless, the fact, that men feel direct taxes more sensibly, that is, they know when they pay them, and how much they pay. Here, then, is liability to ill feeling, and sometimes to resistance; and, moreover, there is a possibility that an excessive parsimony may restrict the public means in such manner, as to prevent the execution

of works of real utility, if not of imperative necessity.

There is, however, a greater liability of injustice, in indirect than in direct taxation. As, when duties are laid upon goods, the tax payer knows very little of the amount paid, and is hence less careful to inquire on what principles the revenue is raised, there is a greater opportunity afforded, in this manner, of imposing the public burdens unequally, and of imposing them for purposes at variance with the principles of the social compact. Hence, a majority may impose taxes for the benefit of a part, and not for the benefit of the whole; and the matter can easily be so mystified, that the sufferer can excite but little sympathy. I do not deny that direct taxation is liable, in some cases, to the same abuse; as, for instance, when the city and country interests strive to shift the burden of taxation upon each other. I only say, that the evil is not so liable to happen in the one case as in the other, and when it does happen, it is more readily exposed.

Aside from irregularity in the assessment of indirect taxes, it may be observed, that, in their very nature, they are liable to objection, because they do not impose the public burden, in any manner in proportion to the share which the individual receives of public protection. The indirect tax, is paid by the consumer. Hence, he pays, not according to the benefit which he receives from the existence of civil government, but according to the amount of production which he consumes. Hence, he who possesses a million dollars' worth of property, if he consume no more than he who lives by his daily labor, will pay no larger share of the public burden. Hence, a manifest inequality is involved in the original conception of an indirect tax.

The same remark may however be applied in part to direct taxation. It may be said, that the tax payer here raises his price, in such a manner that he only pays a part of the tax assessed upon him, and