PRINCIPLES OF TAXATION. 467 



Be this as it may, the distribution of property (wealth) 

 among the people of the American States at the time of the adop- 

 tion of the Federal Constitution, as shown by the debates in the 

 Constitutional Convention, was, very curiously, such that an ap- 

 portionment of taxes according to population and representation 

 was not inequitable. When the subject was under discussion, 

 Roger Sherman, of Connecticut, said he " thought the number of 

 people alone the best rule for measuring wealth as well as repre- 

 sentation" (Elliot's Debates, v, 297). Mr. Gorham, of Massachu- 

 setts, "supported the propriety of establishing numbers as the 

 rule. He said that in Massachusetts estimates had been taken in 

 the different towns, and that persons had been curious enough to 

 compare these estimates with the respective numbers of people, 

 and it had been found, even including Boston, that the most exact 

 proportions prevailed between numbers and property" (ibid., 300). 

 Mr. Wilson, a leading member from Pennsylvania, said that, 

 " taking the same number of people in the aggregate in the west- 

 ern settlements of Pennsylvania and in the city of Philadelphia, 

 he believed there would be little difference in their wealth and 

 ability to contribute to the public wants" (ibid., 301). Dr. John- 

 son, of Connecticut, " thought that wealth and population were 

 the true, equitable rules of representation ; but he conceived 

 that these two principles resolved themselves into one, popula- 

 tion being the best measure of wealth" (ibid., 303). And when 

 the vote came to be taken in the Federal Convention on the 

 proposition that direct taxation ought to be proportioned to 

 representation, it passed without opposition (ibid., 303). 



In the five occasions 1798, 1813, 1815, 181G, and 18G1 in which 

 the Federal Government has established a general system of di- 

 rect taxation, there has been no essential and radical difference 

 of opinion in respect to the methods and instrumentalities by 

 which the provisions of the enactments could be made effective 

 for the purpose of raising revenue. The amount of money de- 

 sirable to raise was first determined. Then the population of 

 each State was taken, according to the latest preceding census, 

 and the proportion of tax proceeds respectively due was calcu- 

 lated.* A statute was then passed declaring that each State should 

 pay to the Federal Treasury so much money, according to their 

 ascertained proportionate liability of the aggregate amount 

 which the entire Union of the States was required to raise. In 

 , each of the first four cases of such a system of taxation the sev- 

 eral States were empowered to assume or assess in their own way 



* Up to and includiug the direct tax of 18fil, its imposition was' scrupulously made in 

 accordance with the understanding of the framers of the Constitution. Thus, the ratio of 

 the State of New York in 1861 was returned at $2,602,918|. 



