SPEECH 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Off. WILLIAM O. MAYNARD, 
 
 Kn tire Senate of NeUi ¥oett. 
 
 LIVERED IN COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE, ON THE BILL INTRODUCED BY MR. BRONSON, 
 CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, FOR IMPOSING A DIRECT TAX; 
 
 AND UPON THE SUBSTITUTE OFFERED BY MR. MAYNARD. 
 
 UTICA: 
 
 WILLIAM WILLIAMS, 60 GENESEE STREET. 
 1832 . 
 
33C.7.1 
 
 j\\ 4 
 
MR. MAYNARD’S SPEECH, 
 
 AGAINST A DIRECT TAX. 
 
 Mr. Maynard said: It is true, Mr. Chair- 
 man, that we have arrived at a crisis that re- 
 quires the establishment of some principles 
 in reference to the revenues of this state. 
 But how different is our situation, both in this 
 state and nation, from the condition of the 
 people of other countries. While the legis- 
 lators of other nations are tasking their facul- 
 ties to raise the supplies necessary for the 
 support of their respective governments, and 
 the people from whom those supplies are to 
 be raised, are staggering under the burdens 
 they are already doomed to bear — we in this 
 nation and this state, are perplexed to devise 
 the proper measures to prevent the dangerous 
 accumulation of funds from existing sources 
 of revenue. 
 
 To point out that dangerous accumulation — 
 to warn us against it — and to admonish us to 
 take measures for its prevention— is the ob- 
 ject of far the most interesting part of the re- 
 port accompanying the bill on your table for 
 the imposition of a tax, and forms also the 
 burden of (in my judgment) far the ablest 
 part of the speech of my honorable colleague, 
 (Mr. Bronson,) in support of that bill. 
 
 The proposition is to tax the people : the 
 argument is, that you are in danger of an ex- 
 cess of funds, from existing sources of revenue, 
 and must labor to prevent it. The bill and 
 the argument, taken together, amount pre- 
 cisely to these two simple propositions : We 
 have too little revenue, and must impose a 
 tax — we have too much revenue from exist- 
 ing sources, and must adopt measures to pre- 
 vent a dangerous accumulation of funds there- 
 from. To a plain man, there appears some- 
 thing paradoxical in these propositions. The 
 people, who are to pay the tax, will demand 
 some explanation. They will desire to know 
 how it can be necessary to impose a tax, 
 when you are alarmed at the certain prospect 
 of having at your disposal a vast accumula- 
 tion of money which you will not need — for 
 which you have no appropriation or contem- 
 plated use — but which maybe employed for 
 the purposes of corruption. If you can sat- 
 isfy them that the imposition of a : ax is ne- 
 cessary, they will bear it with patience. It 
 
 is their duty to do so ; and, if their duty be 
 made clear, they are too patriotic to fail in 
 its performance. But that satisfaction they 
 will demand. They will require you to ex- 
 plain to them why a tax is necessary, and 
 how it happens that when you have such large 
 existing revenues, and such an amount of ac- 
 cumulated funds in prospect, beyond all the 
 purposes for which those revenues were cre- 
 ated, you cannot so manage your finances as 
 to avoid taxation. You must make all this 
 plain, or must expect to meet public disap- 
 probation. 
 
 But my colleague thinks public sentiment 
 is in favor of the bill, and that the tax he pro- 
 poses would be approved. Far different is 
 the opinion which 1 entertain. Our country- 
 men are averse to taxation, and they will be 
 slow to believe the allegation of its necessity* 
 They have been taught to dread taxation. 
 They have been told that taxation is the pro- 
 cess by which despots practice oppression. 
 That the lightness of its burdens is one of 
 the evidences and essential characteristics of 
 a good government. The people, too, have 
 been instructed that taxation was unnecessary. 
 They have been told so in former executive 
 messages, and legislative documents. The 
 present executive has, it is true, held a dif- 
 ferent language. He has repeatedly recom- 
 mended and urged taxation. But from the 
 language and conduct of his predecessors, 
 and from legislative action on this subject, 
 the people had a right to infer that they 
 should be free from the imposition of such 
 burdens. Charges have also been made 
 against the government of excessive prodiga- 
 lity in expenditure. A distrust of the pru- 
 dence, and thejudgment of the legislature, has 
 been engendered. Previous to the year 1830, 
 
 I heard but little on that subject. Before 
 that time, I recollect no very grave charge ; 
 but in that year, charges of the gravest im- 
 port — denunciations of the most sweeping 
 character — were made in the most imposing 
 form. They were presented to the legisla- 
 ture, in an important report from a high public 
 officer. I will give you them in his own words- ' 
 
 “ Where is the immense inheritance of 
 
4 
 
 public property left us by our ancestors ? 
 Wasted — dissipated — and nearly gone ; a 
 patrimony, which, if it had been managed 
 with the prudence and economy which indi- 
 viduals ordinarily exercise in their own af- 
 fairs, would have been sufficient to have sup- 
 orted two such governments as ours, 
 hould an individual squander his own goods 
 in the manner that the funds of this state have 
 been wasted, by every legislature previous 
 to the present, such thoughtless profusion 
 would afford ample cause of issuing a com- 
 mission of lunacy against him. 
 
 “ The plunder of the public property con- 
 stantly invites new aggressions ; and the easy 
 virtue of legislation in pecuniary affairs, is 
 strongly illustrated by the hordes of seducers 
 that are constantly swarming around its 
 halls.” 
 
 The author of the report adds : “ If a ca- 
 tholicon, which would have effectually cured 
 legislative prodigality, could have been pur- 
 chased twenty years ago, at the expense of 
 five millions of dollars, the bargain would 
 have been immensely beneficial to the peo- 
 ple of this state.” [Col. Young’s Report on 
 the Chemung canal.] 
 
 Such is the character which a public offi- 
 cer gives of his government. Is it true ? I 
 will not affirm its truth. That officer unques- 
 tionably believed it to be true. It must be 
 uso. His report was a solemn official act. It 
 was performed under all the responsibility 
 of his high station — under, too, the solemn 
 sanction of his official oath. During the whole 
 of the twenty years of wasteful prodigality, 
 of which he speaks, he was himself connect- 
 ed with the government — an important mem- 
 ber of both branches of the legislature ; he 
 must have been familiar with the “ hordes of 
 seducers,” and have made his declarations 
 from knowledge and experience. That is 
 his testimony, with perfect means of know- 
 ledge ; he gives his solemn asseveration that 
 the description he has given of the conduct 
 of the government is true. If true, what a 
 picture of wastefulness does it present? What 
 confidence can the people have in their go- 
 vernment ? An inheritance sufficient for the 
 support of two such governments, “wasted — 
 dissipated — nearly gone.” The author of 
 that report has given a rule by which you 
 can estimate the extent of the prodigality of 
 your government. 
 
 “ If,” he says, “ a catholicon, which would 
 have effectually cured legislative prodigality 
 could have been purchased twenty years ago, 
 at the expense of five millions of dollars, the 
 bargain would have been immensely benefi- 
 cial.” Five millions at five per cent., for 
 twenty years, and without the process of 
 compounding, for which that officer is distin- 
 
 guished, would amount to ten millions. That 
 sum then was squandered by the government 
 in twenty years. More than that indeed, for 
 the assertion is, that the purchase of the 
 “ catholicon,” at that price, would have been 
 a bargain “ immensely beneficial.” 
 
 Within that period, then, your government, 
 according to the testimony of that distinguish- 
 ed functionary, “ wasted,” “ dissipated,” 
 more than ten millions of dollars — more than 
 half a million a year. It is true, that sum ex- 
 ceeds the whole amount, of expenditure for 
 the purposes of government, but do not let 
 that trifling circumstance diminish your con- 
 fidence in the truth of the allegation. Your 
 officer, who made the charge and the asser- 
 tion, had abundant means of accurate know- 
 ledge. That document was printed, by le- 
 gislative authority. It was published also in 
 the state paper, and ushered to the world 
 with all the imposing recommendations of 
 such high official sanctions. It has been pub- 
 lished also in the more enduring form of a 
 pamphlet, and we have been favored with 
 annual distributions. It has been industri- 
 ously and widely circulated. Will you say 
 it has not gained belief in its statements of 
 facts ? What ! a document emanating from 
 a source so highly responsible — published by 
 authority — and thereby recommended to the 
 world ? The people cannot be so incredulous. 
 To disbelieve such a witness, so high in pub- 
 lic employment and consideration, when, too, 
 his testimony is presented to them in a man- 
 ner so calculated to inspire confidence, would 
 imply strange incredulity. If they do believe 
 it, what must they think of their government ? 
 What confidence can they have in the pru- 
 dence, firmness, or fidelity of their legisla- 
 tors ? The same report from which these 
 extracts are taken, portrays the horrors of 
 taxation. And the author expresses the opi- 
 nion, that “ every dollar drawn from the peo- 
 ple by taxation, probably costs the commu- 
 nity the value of two.” If this report has had 
 the contemplated effect, and gained belief 
 with the community, it must have produced 
 a strong and pervading sentiment against tax- 
 ation. It must have convinced the people 
 that taxation is an enormous evil, to be 
 dreaded, deplored, and avoided. It is in 
 vain that your governor has recommended 
 taxation, and your comptroller has sustained 
 and enforced his recommendations. Here 
 the people see that a public officer, older 
 than either of them-— longer and more closely 
 connected with the legislature — proclaims 
 the prodigality and wastefulness of the go- 
 vernment, and warns the people against the 
 evils and oppressions of taxation. How then 
 can my colleague imagine ;that public senti- 
 ment will sustain him in the imposition of his 
 
contemplated tax? Public sentiment bas 
 been poisoned on the subject of taxation; and 
 believing that, 1 will vote for no tax, so long 
 as I can find means to support the govern- 
 ment without. 
 
 But I have other reasons against taxation, 
 which would exist at all times, unless the ne- 
 cessity for it was palpable : it is an expen- 
 sive mode of raising money. 1 will not say, 
 with the author of the report referred to, 
 that “ for every dollar the government re- 
 ceives by taxation, the community probably 
 pays the value of two” — but a tax certainly 
 does cost the community much more than 
 the government receives. W e are to estimate 
 not only the cost of assessment and collection, 
 but the sacrifices to which individuals in mo- 
 derate circumstances are subjected to pro- 
 cure the money — the loss of time — and loss 
 on property sold for less than its value. Also 
 we should take into the account, the waste 
 produced by forced sales by collectors — and 
 finally the sales of lands for taxes at the ca- 
 pitol. It is impossible to determine exactly 
 the cost of raising money by taxation, but 
 probably it would be safe to estimate it at 
 twenty per cent. Loans can be made for 
 four per cent. I do not propose borrowing, 
 because that is unnecessary ; but the neces- 
 sity for taxation must be great, indeed, to 
 justify a resort to that mode of raising money, 
 at an expense five times greater than would 
 be incurred by loans. 
 
 It is also an unequal tax. Individuals of 
 equal amounts of property, are not equally 
 able to pay taxes. The property of one may 
 be productive — of another not. That of one 
 may be unincumbered — of another, covered 
 with judgments and mortgages. No tax can 
 be equal in its pressure upon all classes ; but 
 a direct tax falls with undue severity upon 
 the poor, and middling, and laboring classes. 
 
 But my principal objection to a direct tax, 
 is, that it is unnecessary. 
 
 Before I proceed to show that, I will exa- 
 mine some of the doctrines of the report, and 
 arguments of my colleague. 
 
 One argument in favor of the taxation is, 
 that we ought to resort to that mode to raise 
 money for th.e support of the government, 
 in order to preserve the general fund. Ac- 
 cording to the report, and the fact, the invest- 
 ed, productive portion of the general fund 
 yields an interest of six per cent. As a fi- 
 nancial operation merely, the proposition 
 amounts then precisely to this, that we should 
 raise money at 20 per cent, cost to preserve 
 property worth six per cent. : it will be 
 long before it can be demonstrated to the 
 satisfaction of the people, that this would be 
 a profitable operation. But the report as- 
 serts a doctrine of a different character, and 
 
 founds upon it an argument addressed to the 
 purest and most virtuous feelings of the hu- 
 man heart, which contemns all pecuniary cal- 
 culations. 
 
 If the doctrine be sound, 1 admit the con- 
 sequences, and yield the point that pecuniary 
 considerations ought not to be regarded. 
 The report asserts, that this fund belongs to 
 posterity — that we received it from our ances- 
 tors, in trust for posterity — that the “ reve- 
 nue is ours, the capital is theirs — and we are 
 bound to transmit it unimpaired, and in a 
 condition to yield them the same revenue 
 which we have derived from it ourselves.” 
 This is not a new idea. The celebrated re- 
 port on the Chemung canal, to which 1 have 
 referred, asserts the same doctrine. We are 
 threatened with the denunciations of poste- 
 rity — we are to be arraigned at their bar for 
 our prodigality and wastefulness — and they 
 are solemnly to disaffirm and repudiate our 
 acts. As I do not expect to enjoy many op- 
 portunities to discuss this matter with poste- 
 rity — I will embrace the present to make my 
 defence against any charges they may prefer 
 on account of misapplication of the general 
 fund, at any lime possessed by this state. I 
 deny totally the correctness of the doctrine. 
 The doctrine is, that we must transmit to 
 posterity the funds we receive, “unimpaired, 
 and in a condition to yield the same revenue 
 which we have derived from it ourselves.” 
 This doctrine forbids all use of such funds, 
 for the purposes of improvement. We must 
 transmit to them the money, and not an equi- 
 valent, or more than an equivalent in some- 
 thing else, because they may not be as well 
 pleased with our acquisitions for them, as 
 with the money expended. This implies 
 that the preservation and transmission of 
 funds to posterity, is the highest duty that 
 can devolve on man. This I deny, and also 
 deny that posterity can assert any such right, 
 or prefer any such claim to the unappropriat- 
 ed funds, either transmitted to, or acquired 
 by, the present generation. 
 
 In the first place, the doctrine rests upon 
 a false foundation ; it is based upon the as- 
 sumption that the general fund was transmit- 
 ted to us by our ancestors. This is an error. 
 That fund did not come to us with any of 
 the venerable attributes of age. It bears no 
 badge of antiquity. It has no immemori- 
 al existence or sacred characteristics. The 
 whole fund was the acquisition of the pre- 
 sent generation. It is admitted in the re- 
 port, in accordance with the truth, that the 
 fund was created by the sale of the public 
 lands. Those lands, it is true, existed before 
 the present generation, but they had no avail- 
 able value. Allowing to the present genera- 
 tion the period usually deemed the duration 
 
of a generation, (33 years,) and it will be | 
 found not only that the fund was created, but 
 the lands that produced it, were mostly ac- 
 quired, during its existence. They were 
 chiefly purchased from the Indians, and when 
 acquired had but little intrinsic and no availa- 
 ble value. The settlement of the country 
 gave them value. That value was imparted 
 by the expenditure of the wealth, by the toil, 
 the skill, the exertions, and privations of in- 
 dividuals. Without them, the lands from 
 which this fund was created would have had 
 no value. The lands, therefore, and the fund 
 derived from them, have not been transmit- 
 ted from generation to generation — but are 
 of recent acquisition. According to the doc- 
 trine, the lands, and not the proceeds, should 
 have been transmitted to posterity. 
 
 But this fund is destitute of another cha- 
 racteristic of a sacred trust. It never was 
 appropriated for any specific object. Where 
 a fund is constituted, appropriated, and set 
 apart for any specific, useful public purpose, 
 the duty devolves upon each successive ge- 
 neration to preserve it sacredly, and apply 
 its proceeds faithfully, according to the de- 
 sign of its creation. Such is the character 
 of our literature and common school funds, 
 and such the duty which will devolve upon 
 succeeding generations in relation to them. 
 But the general fund has no such character. 
 It never received any special appropriation. 
 The power of this generation over that fund, 
 was as ample as over its proceeds ; and they 
 had a right to use it for the benefit of poste- 
 rity. By clearing and settling the country, 
 establishing schools, building churches, towns, 
 villages, and cities — and enduring all the suf- 
 ferings and privations, and incurring all the 
 expenditure incident to the establishment of 
 a well organized society — they created that 
 fund. If ever a people had a right to use 
 their own acquisitions as they pleased, surely 
 that fund might be so used by those who cre- 
 ated it. How have they used it ? If they 
 have not been indifferent to their own neces- 
 sities, they have been mindful of posterity. 
 They have consulted their best interests. 
 Instead of transmitting them unproductive 
 lands, or treasures hoarded with a miser’s 
 care — they have made ample provision for 
 their intellectual and moral culture. They 
 have founded numerous academies and col- 
 leges, and contributed largely to their en- 
 dowments. F or such purposes they have used 
 a considerable portion of that fund. They 
 have devoted two millions more of it to the 
 perpetual support of academies and common 
 schools. Those large funds are consecrated 
 for ever to that holy purpose, and to be aug- 
 mented by the proceeds of all the lands own- j 
 ed by the state at the adoption of the present | 
 
 constitution. And can posterity complain of 
 this provident care of their minds and morals ? 
 This generation has also built state prisons 
 at great cost, requiring another large portion 
 of the general fund, for the enforcement of 
 the criminal code, and the protection of soci- 
 ety: it has also constructed magnificent works 
 of internal improvement, thereby creating 
 wealth beyond example, and diffusing con- 
 venience, comfort, and enjoyment throughout 
 the land. These works are destined to endure 
 forever, and extend their blessings through 
 all time. And after all this, the state now 
 possesses a greater amount of funds than it 
 ever had at any former period. 
 
 My colleague has referred to October, 
 1814, for the state of the general fund. It is 
 the most favorable period that he could have 
 chosen for his purposes. At no other period 
 was it so valuable. But I will take the fund 
 at the same period, and still shew you that 
 you have now a greater aggregate of funds 
 than you had then. I will assume that the 
 canals are worth the amount due for them. 
 That sum is $8,054,000, which is more than 
 two millions less than they cost, that amount 
 having been already paid. No man will 
 deny that they are worth that amount. You 
 could sell them, if you had the power and 
 disposition, for twice that sum. Upon that 
 hypothesis, let us make a comparison be- 
 tween your financial condition in 1814, and 
 at present : 
 
 In Oct. 1814, the general fund 
 was $4,396,943 97 
 
 State debt due 1,503,683 00 
 
 Excess of fund over debt 2,893,260 97 
 Common school fund 822,064 91 
 
 Whole amount of funds $3,715,325 88 
 
 The literature fund was not then created, 
 and three years afterwards it amounted to 
 only $26,000. 
 
 Now you have a clear general 
 fund of $684,071 00 
 
 Common school fund 1,754,159 40 
 
 Literature fund 263,507 96 
 
 Canal fund 2,651,000 00 
 
 $5,352,738 36 
 You have now, therefore, more than six- 
 teen hundred thousand dollars more of funds 
 in the aggregate, than you possessed at that 
 period. It may be said that the canal fund 
 is pledged for the payment of the canal debt, 
 and cannot therefore be applied toother pur- 
 poses. It is true : but upon the assumption 
 that the canals are worth the debt, you may 
 claim the existing fund, or what is the same 
 thing, derive from the same sources of reve- 
 nue that produced it, an equal or greater 
 
fund, after the debt is paid. By the benefi- 
 cent use of a small portion of your general 
 fund in addition to your credit, you have cre- 
 ated a prolific source of revenue. From that 
 resource, you may create a fund larger than 
 you ever possessed, or could have possessed, 
 by hoarding your treasures. 
 
 If then young posterity comes here to com- 
 plain, I will address him after this manner : 
 “ You complain of your ancestors, because 
 they did not keep and transmit to you the 
 fund created by the sale of lands ! Your an- 
 cestors cleared up and settled this fair coun- 
 try for you. They turned a wilderness into 
 a delightful, cultivated country. They built 
 for you school houses, academies and colle- 
 ges, and endowed them. They created the 
 towns, villages, and cities, and all the estab- 
 lishments of the happy society to which you 
 are introduced. By these means they gave 
 value to the lands, and created the fund. 
 They provided for your intellectual cultiva- 
 tion, and moral worth. By their internal im- 
 provements, they have created for you vast, 
 never failing resources of enjoyment and 
 wealth. They transmit to you, also, a greater 
 amount of funds than they ever had at any 
 one time, as the product of those lands. And 
 if all this does not content you, they have 
 done one thing more. They have built am- 
 ple state prisons ; and if you do not stop 
 your unreasonable, false clamors against your 
 parents, we will shut you up !” 
 
 Believing that the government has a per- 
 fect right to use the principal of the general 
 fund, as well as its revenues, for ordinary 
 purposes and expenses, I am in favor of using 
 that fund rather than resort to taxation. I 
 have no reluctance at expending that fund 
 for the support of the government, and there- 
 by avoiding the necessity of raising money 
 by taxation at such great cost and personal 
 inconvenience. There are many reasons in 
 favor of exhausting that fund for useful ob- 
 jects. It is a deceptive fund. Its real value 
 is always less than its apparent value. Up- 
 wards of $300,000 of its apparent amount is 
 already designated by the comptroller as bad, 
 or doubtful, and deducted from the estimate 
 of its solvent and available items. In its 
 management, the government is perpetually 
 subjected to loss. It is also subjected to 
 trouble, vexation, and expense, in legislating 
 upon the various applications for postpone- 
 ment of payment, remission of interest, and 
 occasionally of principal. It is also a vicious 
 fund ; it leads to prodigality of expenditure. 
 I do not by any means admit, that prodigality 
 has been practised to the extent alleged, but 
 the instances of improvident expenditures 
 that have occurred, may be fairly attributed 
 to the existence of that fund. It is natural 
 
 that it should be so. Appropriations may 
 have been made, because there was a large 
 fund, from which they could be drawn, which 
 would have been refused if there had been 
 no such fund in existence. The fact that the 
 people will not feel, possibly not know, the 
 expenditure, has a powerful, though perhaps 
 imperceptible influence. 
 
 If the present general fund be notexpend- 
 j ed for the support of the government, it will 
 be expended for objects, possibly, less wor- 
 thy. Its preservation is impracticable. If 
 you impose a tax, you will not obtain your 
 object. The fund will be expended, and 
 the people subjected to burdens. I propose 
 to save them from those burdens, by the ex- 
 penditure of the fund. 1 will hereafter shew 
 that it is sufficient. 
 
 But a new doctrine is asserted, which I 
 feel bound to notice, although I should gladly 
 have avoided the discussion. It is broadly 
 asserted, that our canals are not “ legitimate 
 sources of revenue.” That the state has no 
 right to raise revenue from them. That after 
 the debt incurred in their construction is 
 paid, no greater revenue should be raised 
 from them than is necessary to keep them in 
 repair. This doctrine is founded on the as- 
 sumption that the canals were made wholly 
 for the purposes of commerce, and not at all 
 for revenue — and we are boldly called upon 
 to shew the title of the state to the canals 
 which it has constructed. With your indul- 
 gence, sir, I will present that title. 
 
 The constitution, after providing that tolls 
 shall be imposed on all the “ navigable com- 
 munications between the great western and 
 northern lakes and the Atlantic ocean, which 
 now are, or hereafter shall be completed” — 
 and providing that those tolls shall be pledg- 
 ed for the canal debt, and shall neither be 
 reduced nor diverted until the payment of 
 that debt, proceeds to declare, that “ the le- 
 gislature shall never sell or dispose of the 
 salt springs, belonging to this state, nor the 
 lands contiguous thereto, which may be ne- 
 cessary or convenient for their use, nor the 
 said navigable communications, or any part 
 or section thereof ; but the same shall be 
 and remain the properly of this state.” 
 There, sir, is the title deed, deliberately ex- 
 ecuted by the whole people. Thosfc who 
 deny the title of the state, must come into 
 court, and deny their own deed. This was 
 the assertion of no new claim — it was not the 
 assumption of a title, but was only a more 
 formal and solemn declaration of a pre-ex- 
 isting claim and title, which had never been 
 disputed. It was a provision declaring not 
 only the title of the state to the canals, as it 
 was admitted to exist, but that such title 
 should remain forever. That provision de- 
 
8 
 
 prived the legislature of the power of chang- 
 ing that title, or parting with it, or diminish- 
 ing the property of the state in those works. 
 That provision declares, that the canals 
 shall be and remain the property ot the state. 
 Property, for what ? Property only to be 
 abandoned — to be made a common highway? 
 That would be a novel definition of the word. 
 The term, property, must have acquired 
 some new meaning. If the ownerof property 
 has not a right to use it in a manner most 
 beneficial to himself, without interference 
 with the rights of others, and to determine 
 for himself what manner will be most bene- 
 ficial, our ideas of property are all wrong. 
 Property, according to this doctrine, instead 
 of conferring upon the owner, the absolute, 
 uncontrolled right to use and manage it for 
 his own benefit, imposes the duty of keeping 
 and preserving it for the use of others. But 
 what meaning was affixed to the word pro- 
 perty, when the provision was inserted in 
 the constitution, and ratified by the people ? 
 It cannot be denied that the word has now, 
 and must forever retain, the same meaning 
 that it had then. 
 
 Property, in that particular use of the word, 
 must now and forever be understood, as the 
 framers of the constitution, at the time of its 
 insertion, and the people, at the adoption of 
 that instrument, understood it. Was it then 
 understood to confer no right to raise a re- 
 venue ? Was such a doctrine then asserted ? 
 Was such, then, declared to be the meaning 
 and limitation of the provision ? The canals 
 were then in progress. The purposes for 
 which they were undertaken — the objects to 
 be accomplished by them — the interests and 
 rights of the state in and over them — were 
 well understood. The previous history of 
 the canals was fresh ; the designs, the mo- 
 tives that led to the commencement of those 
 great works, were familiarly and universally 
 known. Was ft then declared that the ob- 
 ject of securing to the state a perpetual pro- 
 perty in them, implied a denial of the right 
 of raising revenue from them ? No such doc- 
 trine was then asserted — no such pretence 
 was then made — no man then thought of giv- 
 ing such a restricted meaning to the word 
 property, or of thus limiting the power and 
 rights of the state. Nor had such a doctrine 
 been asserted at any former period. This 
 view leads to an inquiry as to the motives, 
 purposes, and objects for which the canals 
 were commenced and constructed. 
 
 The committee on finance, in their report, 
 declare that the “ canals were made for com- 
 merce,” and the course of argument in which 
 they indulge, would imply that they were 
 made exclusively for that object ; that no 
 reference whatever was had to revenue. 
 
 Indeed, that is the argument of my colleague, 
 (Mr. Bronson,) and the gentleman from the 
 8th, (Mr. Tracy.) 
 
 The canal board, in their report, made in 
 obedience to a resolution of the Senate, in 
 April, 1830, say : “ The advantages to the 
 people of this state to be derived from the 
 construction of the navigable communications, 
 between the great western and northern lakes 
 and the Atlantic ocean, were doubtless based 
 upon the anticipated revenues which these 
 works would produce. 
 
 1 do not cite the opinion of the canal board 
 as authority. On a former occasion I labor- 
 ed to shew its fallacy. But I introduce it 
 for the purpose of presenting the extremes 
 of the doctrine on this subject. The canal 
 board asserts, that revenue was the primary 
 object in the construction of the canals. The 
 committee declare it was no object all — that 
 commerce was not only the primary, but the 
 exclusive object. Here there is a palpable, 
 irreconcilable disagreement. As 1 under- 
 stand this subject, both are alike in error. 
 On the occasion 1 have referred to, (the dis- 
 cussion on the bill for the construction of the 
 Chenango canal,) I endeavored to show that 
 the primary object for which the system of 
 internal improvements was undertaken, and 
 the canals were constructed, was the exten- 
 sion of commercial facilities — that revenue 
 was an object secondary and subordinate to 
 commerce — but nevertheless, with equal cer- 
 tainty, an object. It is not necessary for me, 
 on this occasion, to prove that commerce 
 was the primary object, since the report and 
 the gentlemen who support its doctrines as- 
 sert that it was not only the primary, but the 
 exclusive object. To determine the truth, 
 in this particular, we must refer to the co- 
 temporary history. I assert, that revenue 
 was an object ; and in support of that, I ap- 
 peal to every public document having any 
 bearing upon this point, from the first sug- 
 gestion of the project to the completion of 
 the Erie and Champlain canals. Heretofore, 
 
 I have presented some of the documents that 
 contain this proof. I will not now produce 
 any, or appeal to anyone in particular, but 1 
 refer to every one, from the commencement 
 of the system to the completion of the yvorks. 
 You will find revenue conspicuously exhi- 
 bited, as one of the inducements to the com- 
 mencement, one of the objects for the pro- 
 secution, one of the great advantages to be 
 enjoyed by the people of this state from the 
 completion — in the communications of the 
 executive — the reports of committees of both 
 houses — and in the reports of the canal com- 
 missioners. Nor was that revenue to be 
 raised solely for the purpose of paying the 
 debt incurred in the construction, and reim- 
 
 t 
 
burning the general fund lor its advances, 
 but the further application of that revenue 
 was distinctly indicated. In the same re- 
 ports, it was continually and confidently pre- 
 sented to the legislature and the people, that 
 the canals, after the payment of the cost of 
 their. construction, would afford a prolific re- 
 venue, to be applied to the further prosecu- 
 tion of the system of internal improvements, 
 the promotion of education, and the suppoit 
 of the government. These were the great 
 and useful purposes to which the revenue to 
 be afforded by the canals was to be devoted, 
 and these views were presented, in the most 
 imposing manner, as inducements to the com- 
 mencement and prosecution of the work. 
 No proof of these facts is necessaiy. My 
 colleague, (Mr. Bronson,) and the gentleman 
 from the 8th, admit that such are the contents 
 of the public documents. But my colleague 
 insists, that they constituted no pledge that 
 revenue should be raised from the canals, 
 and that those views, presented in such do- 
 cuments, were no more important than his 
 report containing the contrary doctrine — that 
 both express the opinions ot the respective 
 committees whence they emanated, and are 
 entitled to equal respect. I freely .admit 
 that his report resembles those public docu- 
 ments, in some of its characteristics. In abi- 
 lity, and respectability of authorship, it may 
 be entitled to equality. But in one particu- 
 lar, it is yet most essentially dissimilar. 
 Those public documents leceived the sar c- 
 tion of the legislature. They were accom- 
 panied or followed by bills making appro- 
 priations for the prosecution of the work. 
 The passage of those bills, founded upon 
 these documents, furnishes evidence that 
 their principles met the approbation of the 
 legislature and the people. The report of 
 my honorable colleague has not yet that high 
 and solemn sanction. When the bill for the 
 imposition of a tax, which he introduced in 
 conjunction with; that report, shall have be- 
 come a law, his report will more closely re- 
 semble those other documents, as matter of 
 evidence and authority. But, until that event 
 shall accrue, his report is evidence only of 
 the opinions of those who embrace its doc- 
 trines. 
 
 , The gentleman from the 8th, says, that 
 opinions were confidently expressed in the 
 legislature and the community, adverse to 
 the utility of the contemplated canals, either 
 for commerce or revenue ; and those opinions 
 may be offset against the highly favorable 
 and flattering ones contained in the public 
 documents. There is one vast difference. 
 The dismal forebodings, the ill-boding pro- 
 phecies of the opponents 6f the canal policy, 
 were rejected and disregarded, while the 
 
 views presented in the public documents of 
 advantages to commerce, and abundance of 
 revenue, influenced the action of the legisla- 
 ture. The funds to execute the canals were 
 appropriated under these inducements. By 
 means of them, votes were obtained in favor 
 of the bills granting the supplies. The ob- 
 ject of revenue was a powerful and indispen- 
 sable inducement. In the passage of the bills, 
 the votes of many were required who repre- 
 sented counties and districts, which, from 
 their situation, would not partak'e directly in 
 the commercial advantages created by the 
 canals. To influence them, the inducement 
 of revenue was presented. It was powerfully 
 urged, and proved effectual. Revenue was 
 to be the means by which the advantages of 
 the canals were to be more nearly equalized. 
 That revenue was to be used to extend the 
 benefits of the canal system to other sections 
 of the state. It was also to be applied to the , 
 promotion of education, and the diffusion of^ 
 its blessings. * 
 
 It was likewise to contribute to the ordina-^ 
 ry expenses of the government, and the pros-^, 
 pect was presented of freedom from taxation 
 forever. These were the pretences and in- 
 ducements by which the necessary funds 
 were obtained. The supplies were voted — 
 the canals made — their immense commercial 
 advantages secured — and now we are told 
 that notwithstanding such were the pretences 
 and inducements, no such thing was ever in- 
 tended. Revenue was no object ; and when 
 the debt is paid, and the general fund reim- 
 bursed, the tolls must be abolished. Sir, 
 we have a statute declaring it to be a mis- 
 demeanor to obtain goods under false pre- 
 tences. Will you explain to me why it is 
 less heinious in point of morality to obtain 
 money by false pretences than goods ? If 
 the inducements held out were real, sincere, 
 and influential, then revenue was an object 
 in the construction of the canals. If they 
 were not, then the money was obtained by 
 false pretences — by fraud — and it will be 1 
 fraudulent in those who disappoint the ex- 
 pectations which were created by those in- 
 ducements. I desire not to be a partaker 
 in that fraud, or in its fruits. 
 
 The property of the state in the canals is 
 as ample, and secured by the same instru- 
 ment and terms, as in the salt springs ; and 
 it might with the same propriety be contend- 
 ed, that the state should not raise revenue 
 from them as from the canals. But, say gen- 
 tlemen, commerce ought to have been the 
 sole object in undertaking the canals, and 
 therefore it is to be presumed that it was 
 the exclusive object. The inquiry is not 
 what should have been, bat wbat actually 
 were the motives that led to engagement in 
 
the enterprise. There is no difficulty now 
 in coming to the conclusion that commerce 
 was, of itself, a sufficient object, and if the 
 canals had been undertaken for that alone, 
 it would have been an abundant inducement. 
 Vet, it is certain that so far was that from 
 being the exclusive object, that one such re- 
 port as that now under consideration, or one 
 such speech as that of my colleague, or the 
 gentleman from the 8th — from any friend of 
 the canals, at, or soon after the commence- 
 ment of the work — would have blown up the 
 whole system. It is easy now to talk of the 
 vast importance of the enterprise — its im- 
 mense benefits — the facility with which the 
 work was executed — the fact that there really 
 was no hazard — that success was certain, and 
 recompense superabundant — of the folly and 
 absurdity of those who doubted the practi- 
 cability or utility of the work, and hesitated 
 to commence it. Yet far different was the 
 case when i's commencement was a subject 
 'or consideration. All then was doubt and 
 mcertainty. We had no experience to 
 guide us — no results on which to found cal- 
 culations. Votes were to be obtained. 
 They were withheld from honest fears of the 
 consequences, and finally given with reluc- 
 tance. All the inducements which the works 
 promised, were held out — repeated — and 
 powerfully urged. Of them, revenue was 
 on$ of the most influential. It may be with 
 perfect safety affirmed, that without that, in 
 addition to commerce, the work would never 
 have been commenced, or if begun, would 
 have been only partially executed. It must 
 be in the recollection of us all, that the exe 
 cution of the western section was long a mat- 
 ter of debate and hesitation. A different 
 plan— -that of connecting the canal with Lake 
 Ontario, by the Oswego river — was recom- 
 mended, in a powerful pamphlet, which 
 commanded the assent of most enlightened 
 minds. It is probably owing to the intelli- 
 gence, firmness, and decision of two indivi- 
 duals, inhabitants of the same town with 
 yourself, Mr. chairman, (Mr. Foster was then 
 in the chair,) — one at the head of the engi • 
 neer department, and the other chairman 
 of the canal committee, of the assembly — that 
 the western section was ever made. I rejoice 
 that it was constructed, although its execu- 
 tion cost the state more than three millions 
 of dollars. 
 
 Most of the commercial advantages would 
 have been secured without it, but the bene- 
 fits to the western section would never have 
 been so largely enjoyed. 1 admit that the 
 whole state has bee.*> benefitted by the canals, 
 but those benefits have not been equally dis- 
 tributed. Some sections, in consequence of 
 their situation, have partaken of them much 
 
 10 • 
 
 more largely than others. I recently gnre 
 you the evidence of the benefits derived by 
 the city of New York. I beg leave to refer 
 to it again. Take the assessed value of the 
 real estate of that city for two periods of 
 seven years each, and you have the proof in 
 the most conspicuous and conclusive form. 
 
 The first period embraces the years from 
 1817 to 1824 , inclusive. In the first of those 
 years, the assessed amount of real estate was 
 upwards of fifty-eight millions of dollars, in 
 the last it had sunk to little more than fifty- 
 two millions. While, therefore, the city en- 
 joyed all that the state of the world could 
 permit of foreign commerce, her real estate 
 diminished almost six millions of dollars. 
 
 The second period embraces the years from 
 1825 to 1831 , inclusive. At the close of the 
 first of those years, the canals were comple- 
 ted ; but the use and advantage of a great 
 portion of them had been enjoyed the whole 
 year. In 1825 , the valuation of the real es- 
 tate in that city amounted to upwards of fifty- 
 eight millions — more than six millions above 
 the valuation of the preceding year ; and in 
 1831 , it exceeded ninety-five millions, giving 
 an increase of almost forty-four millions in 
 seven years, and an average increase of more 
 than six millions a year. When this tide of 
 prosperity commenced its flow, the city was 
 not stationary, but on the decline. Its ad- 
 vancement has been sudden and rapid, be- 
 yond all former example. Nearly forty-four 
 millions of dollars — almost one half of the 
 assessed value of its real estate, has been 
 created by the canals. Y et this effect does 
 not equal the effect produced by the canals 
 upon the western section of the state. The 
 people of that highly favored region, owe to 
 them more than half of all they are worth. 
 Some idea of the benefits conferred upon 
 that part of the state, may be acquired from 
 the comparison of the expenses of transpor- 
 tation before and since the Erie canal was 
 completed. Before, the expense from Alba- 
 ny to Buffalo was $70 a ton : now it is $ 19 . 
 From Buffalo to Albany, it was $50 : now it 
 is $ 10 — half freight, half tolls. The enhance- 
 ment in the value of the real estate, may be 
 estimated from the increased value imparted 
 to its products, and from the towns, villager 
 and cities which the canal has created along 
 its line. What the western people pay in 
 tolls, is therefore a small tax for immense pe- 
 cuniary benefits. 
 
 The gentleman from the 8th said, that the 
 state of New York had been styled magna- 
 nimous ; and he seemed to imply, that, by 
 attempting to raise revenue from the canals, 
 she would forfeit her character for magnani- 
 mity. New York has indeed a lofty charac- 
 ter for magnanimity, energy, and enterprise. 
 
 • 
 
Long may she retain it ! Long may that 
 character, and a still more enviable charac- 
 ter for justice, stand recorded in the pure 
 and exalted language of deserved commen- 
 dation ! Far distant may the day be, when 
 New York shall cease to be magnanimous — 
 still more distant may that day be, when she 
 shall cease to be just — but still more remote 
 may that day be, when the west, the gene- 
 rous, glorious west— -shall become selfish, 
 narrow, and illiberal in her policy. 
 
 But it is affirmed, that “ public works are 
 not legitimate subjects of revenue.” This 
 proposition seems to assert, that there is some 
 inflexible principle, either in morality or po- 
 licy, which forbids the raising of revenue 
 from such sources. What is it ? Where is 
 it to be found ? Is it some cardinal princi- 
 ple in nature ? Does it form the foundation 
 of a code of ethics ? Is it matter of conven- 
 tional agreement ? Is it a settled point in 
 international law? Is there any prohibition 
 contained in any written constitution ? Has 
 the conduct of nations repudiated the policy? 
 These are subjects on which the advocates 
 of the proposition should enlighten the 
 world. Let them tell us why “public works 
 are not legitimate subjects of revenue.” If 
 they were constructed expressly for the pur- 
 pose of revenue, made by original intent sub- 
 jects of revenue — let them explain why they 
 “ are not legitimate.” The gentleman from 
 the 8th, says, “ if the Erie canal had not 
 been constructed by the state, it would have 
 been constructed by an incorporated compa- 
 ny.” Without stopping to discuss the pro- 
 bability of such an event, let us inquire what 
 difference that would have made in the mat- 
 ter of taxation. If the state has not a right 
 to raise revenue from public works for the 
 benefit of the whole community, whence has 
 it a right to authorise a company to raise re- 
 venue for its private emolument ? With all 
 incorporations for the execution of public 
 works, revenue, if not the exclusive object, 
 is an essential and controlling inducement : 
 no public works would ever be executed by 
 an incorporation without it. That revenue 
 can be raised only by a tax on those who 
 use it. The government confers upon the 
 incorporation the power of taxation. If it 
 has not a right to tax directly, by its own au- 
 thority, for the benefit of the whole state — 
 tell me, sir, whence it derives the right to 
 tax by indirection, for private purposes. And 
 would the condition of the western people 
 have been improved, if that magnificent work 
 had been executed by an incorporation, ra- 
 ther than constructed by the state. An incor- 
 poration for that purpose must have had a 
 charter, either interminable or of very long 
 duration,. and conferring very ample powers. 
 
 No other would have been accepted for an 
 enterprise so vast, expensive, and, then 
 deemed, so hazardous. The previous prac 
 tice of the state justifies the belief that such 
 a charter, if granted, Would have been with 
 unlimited duration. The practice of the 
 state had been, in granting incorporations 
 for public improvements of far less magni - 
 tude, (roads and bridges,) to make them 
 without limitation of time, or grant them 
 upon a condition which rendered them per- 
 petual. And even now, when public opinion 
 and the practice of the legislature has chang- 
 ed on that subject, we grant incorporations 
 for rail roads to endure lor fifty years. If 
 we have a right to grant them tor that peri- 
 od, we have for any longer term. The 
 question of right is confined to the existence 
 of a generation. If we have a right to grant 
 an incorporation to continue beyond the dur- 
 ation of a generation, we have an equal right 
 to extend its existence to any imaginable 
 period. If we have a right to bind the next 
 succeeding generation, we have the same 
 right to bind the tenth or hundredth genera- 
 tion. Mr. Jefferson, who has discoursed 
 upon this subject, considers nineteen years 
 as the existence of a generation ; that is, 
 that a majority of the actors at the com- 
 mencement of the period, will be displaced 
 by others at its close, and therefore con- 
 cludes that that is the period for which a go- 
 vernment may make its acts, affecting pro- 
 perty, binding. The more usual estimate 
 for the duration of a generation, is thirty 
 three years. Whatever the period of its 
 existence may be, when we have passed its 
 boundaiy, the point at which we shall stop 
 is matter of entirely arbitrary assumption, 
 fixed and determined by no principle of right. 
 
 We grant these charters, too, with unre- 
 stricted powers of taxation. If therefore the 
 practice of the legislature is, and always has 
 been to grant charters to companies for pub- 
 lic improvements, and for objects compara- 
 tively unimportant, for long or unlimited du- 
 ration, and, in many cases, with unrestricted 
 powers of raising revenue by means of tolls 
 or duties, it may be safely assumed, that, if 
 an incorporation were to have been created, 
 for the construction of the Erie canal, it would 
 have been invested with a long if not perpe- 
 tual existence, and the amplest powers. 
 The argument, then, of the gentleman on this 
 point amounts to this : the state has no right 
 to raise revenue from the Erie canal for the 
 benefit of the whole community, but it would 
 have a right to raise any amount of revenue, 
 and for all time, by indirection, for the exclu- 
 sive benefit of an incorporation ; and the peo- 
 ple of the west, instead of having that reve- 
 nue regulated by the government in which 
 
they themselves exercise a powerful influ* 
 ence, would have been in an improved con- 
 dition, if they had been subject to unlimited 
 taxation, imposed by the “ tender mercies” 
 of an artificial, soulless being. 
 
 The gentleman from the 8th said he voted 
 for the Chenango canal — that in that meas- 
 ure he acted with me — he was satisfied that 
 it was a risk the state ought to run — he sup- 
 posed his views and mine were alike, but he 
 was surprised to find that I advocated the 
 payment of the cost of that contemplated 
 improvement out of the funds to be accumu- 
 lated from the canal revenues. If he had 
 reflected, he could have been at no loss as 
 to the motives of my action. They had 
 been plainly, explicitly, and repeatedly 
 stated. My principle is, let the system ex- 
 tend itself. One purpose of the canal reve- 
 nues was to extend the system. 
 
 I do say, pay the cost of the short, tribu- 
 tary canals out of the funds which will be ac- 
 cumulated from the canal revenues. And 1 
 maintain the justice of this on the principle 
 of contribution. A1J the tributary canals 
 contribute to increase the tolls of the Erie 
 canal, and thereby swell the amount of the 
 canal revenues, and hasten the period when 
 the canal fund will equal the amount of the 
 canal debt. As the cost of the construction 
 of the Erie canal will be paid, to some ex- 
 tent, by the contributions of the tributary 
 canals, it is the plainest principle of justice 
 that when its debt is paid, it should refund 
 to the tributaries at least an equal amount, 
 if so much should be required. 
 
 The Chenango canal would be a large 
 contributor to the revenues of the Erie canal, 
 and upon the same principle the funds ac- 
 cumulated from those revenues may with 
 perfect justice be applied to the payment of 
 the cost of its construction. 
 
 But the gentleman says the cost of the 
 Champlain canal is charged upon the reve- 
 nues of the Erie. I regret that the genfle- 
 inan had not been in his place and listened 
 to the argument of my colleague from Onei- 
 da, (Mr. Foster,) for he would have seen 
 proved, as clear as demonstration can make 
 it, that the Champlain canal, after paying 
 all the expenses incurred for its own suste- 
 nation, and the interest upon its cost, affords 
 an annual surplus to be applied to the pay- 
 ment of the debt incurred for its construc- 
 tion. On a former occasion he made the 
 same clear proof in reference to the Cayuga 
 and Seneca canal. 
 
 The Oswego canal has been represented 
 as failing to sustain itself. Great injustice 
 has been done it. Let it have credit for 
 what it has done, and a very different result 
 will be produced. In the first place it cre- 
 
 ated a portion of the means employed for 
 its construction — certain lands were appro- 
 priated by the state for that purpose. The 
 canal was commenced, and tne lands have 
 since been sold. They have produced up- 
 wards of $173,000. Will you tell me, sir, 
 what they would have produced at the same 
 time, if the canal had not been undertaken? 
 It cannot be told ; but all who are acquaint- 
 ed with the circumstances, know well, that 
 the product would not have been near that 
 amount. From the cost of construction 
 should have been deducted die sum which 
 the canal added to the value of those lands. 
 The state has yet other lands which have 
 also been greatly enhanced in value by the 
 same cause. The canal commissioners ad- 
 mit that the Oswego canal should have credit 
 for $3000 annually, for tolls on wood per- 
 mitted to pass toll free, for the benefit of the 
 salt springs. If you will estimate the effect 
 of that canal in diminishing the expense in 
 the manufacture, and consequently the ex- 
 tent of the sale of that article, and in the in- 
 crease of canal revenue from salt duties, you 
 will find the Oswego canal entitled to much 
 larger credit on that account. But its de- 
 mands upon the Erie canal for contributions, 
 are of still greater amount. Every thing 
 which passes from the Oswego canal on to 
 the Erie, and would not have passed without 
 it, pays a much larger sum in tolls on the 
 Erie canal than it does on the Oswego. The 
 length of the Oswego canal is 38 miles ; it 
 unites with the Erie canal 170 miles from its 
 junction with the Hudson river ; commodi- 
 ties passing on the Oswego do not pay toll, 
 on the average, on its whole length. It is 
 fair, therefore, to assume that these commo- 
 dities pay five times the amount on the Erie 
 canal, that they do on the Oswego. I will 
 notice a single item. Lumber constitutes an 
 important one in the transportation on the 
 Oswego. Without that canal not a stick of 
 it would ever have found its way into the 
 Erie canal. It now goes to the Hudson river. 
 It , therefore, lumber pays $4000 on the Os- 
 wego canal, it contributes $20,000 annually 
 to the tolls of the Erie canal. Several mil- 
 lions cf feet pass every year, and that esti- 
 mate is probably below the reality. A care- 
 ful scrutiny would 'produce a similar result 
 as to every article transported on the Oswe- 
 go canal, and establish the fact, that the ca- 
 nal has afforded every year a surplus after 
 defraying all its expenses. It will also exhi- 
 bit the further fact, that the Erie canal is, 
 to a respectable amount, the debtor of the 
 tributary canals. 
 
 The report affirms that “ the interests of 
 commerce are paramount to all others” — and 
 that “ commerce should not be made to suf- 
 
* 13 
 
 fer (or the incidental advantages which the 
 canal has conferred on the adjacent country.” 
 
 This proposition gives a wonderful promi- 
 nence to commerce ; and to advance its inte - 
 rests tolls on the transportation on the canals 
 must be abolished. Sir, what is commerce ? 
 It is merely the exchange of the surplus pro- 
 ductions of agriculture and manufactures. — 
 Commerce is not the original, primary inte- 
 rest. It is founded and dependent upon ag- 
 riculture and manufactures. They are the 
 aliment of commerce. They furnish the 
 materials, and without them it cannot exist. 
 Agriculture and manufactures may exist 
 without commerce. They may not flourish 
 without it. Agriculture and manufactures 
 are essential to commerce, and all are mu- 
 tually beneficial to each other. How then 
 can it be affirmed that the “ interests of com- 
 merce are paramount to all others” ? The 
 proposition seems to imply that commerce 
 should not be taxed. Its interests are so sa- 
 cred and paramount, that it should be ex- 
 empted from a share in the burdens which 
 the public exigencies require. This seems 
 to imply that taxation on commerce falls 
 solely on that, and does not affect other great 
 interests. Is such the fact ? These allega- 
 tions are made in reference to the canal tolls. 
 Do they affect commerce alone ? Who pays 
 them ? Not the merchant, through whose 
 hands the commodities on which they are 
 levied, pass. He reckons the money he ad- 
 vances for tolls as a part of the cost, and 
 makes a profit upon it. The tolls upon the 
 merchandize transported upon the canals are 
 paid by the consumers ; and upon the pro- 
 ducts of the soil, by the consumers or pro- 
 ducers. And who are they? Not alone 
 men engaged in commerce, but individuals 
 of every avocation in life. The canal tolls 
 affect commerce least of all the great inte- 
 rests, and fall most heavily upon manufac- 
 tures and agriculture. Those tolls are paid 
 as all duties and imposts are, by those who 
 produce or consume the articles upon which 
 they are imposed. Tolls, duties, and im- 
 posts, may be impediments to commerce 
 when so high as to amount to prohibitions ; 
 but unless they are, whatever they may be, 
 they are paid chiefly by those who are not 
 connected wfith commerce. It might with 
 equal propriety be contended that all duties 
 and imposts on importations should be abol- 
 ished, because the “interests of commerce 
 are paramount to all others.” Then all the 
 public revenue must be raised by direct tax- 
 ation. This doctrine may be rendered 
 beautiful in theory, and supported by plau- 
 sible reasoning and imposing statements ; 
 but it is against the judgment of the world. 
 If tolls, duties and imposts are taxes upon 
 
 commerce, all civilized nations tax com- 
 merce ; it is the practice of all Christendom* 
 In the policy of this, all mankind agree. It 
 is not because it is a tax on commerce exclu- 
 sively, but because it is a convenient mode 
 of levying taxes upon all the members of a 
 community who should pay them. Nor is 
 it solely because it is easier for a government 
 to raise revenue in that mode than in any 
 other; but it is because communities prefer 
 to pay taxes in that way. It may not be the 
 most equal, but it is the most agreeable way 
 of providing for the support of government. 
 What has been always done and is now uni- 
 versally practised, with the unanimous assent 
 of mankind, may surely be regarded as 
 public sentiment. 
 
 Following out the idea of benefitting com- 
 merce. my colleague and the gentleman 
 from the 8th, contend, that it is the duly of 
 the commissioners of the canal fund, to go 
 into the market and purchase up the canal 
 stocks at any price at which they can be ob- 
 tained. The first answer to this is, that it is 
 impossible. These officers have not, in this 
 particular, been negligent of their duty. 
 They have made the attempt, and with no 
 success. They have not been able to pur- 
 chase a single dollar’s worth of stock. The 
 moment they employ an agent for that pur- 
 pose, brokers discover him, and the stocks 
 immediately rise. It is in vain to task your 
 officers with the duty of purchasing those 
 stocks until a change shall occur, in the pe- 
 cuniary condition of the world, that shall 
 render it undesirable to hold them. But, if 
 those stocks were attainable, would it be 
 judicious to purchase them at their present 
 price ? The committee have shewn us in 
 their report what it would cost. That doc- 
 ument assumes that the canal stocks are 
 worth on an average, a premium of 1^5 per 
 cent, and amounting in the aggregate to $1,. 
 208,346 75 of premium necessary to effect 
 the redemption of the canal stocks. Accor- 
 ding to this doctrine, we must give aw r ay 
 upwards of $1 ,200,000 for the privilege of 
 paying our debts, and that too when nearly 
 one half of the amount becomes payable in 
 five years, when payment can be made with- 
 out arsacrifice. And indeed, when we re- 
 ceive 4 1-2 per cent, interest on our canal 
 fund, and pay only 5 and 6 per cent, upon 
 our stocks, to save the difference of one and 
 one- half per cent, interest, we must give 
 away one-seventh part of the principal, 
 amounting to more than $1,200,000, a sum 
 more than sufficient to support our govern- 
 ment for three years — and all this for the 
 benefit of commerce — that the tolls may be 
 abolished and commodities pass free. This 
 would be a beautiful, practical illustration 
 
of the doctrine of free trade. We must 
 give away what we have in possession, for 
 the purpose of trying the experiment of 
 •splendid theories, and in the hope of obtain- 
 ing a fanciful, ideal advantage. Yes, there 
 is one benefit more to be attained by this 
 operation: The precious privilege of sub- 
 jecting the people of the state to ‘‘eternal 
 taxation.” The right of raising revenue 
 from the canals, for which I contend, does 
 not involve the question of the rates of tolls 
 it would be proper to establish. This ques- 
 tion has been discussed by the gentlemen 
 who deny the right, as though there was no 
 alternative between the present rates and a 
 total abolition. That is not a full and cor- 
 rect view of the case. No one insists that 
 the present rates should be always retained. 
 Such a doctrine has never been advocated 
 on this floor. I have on every befitting oc- 
 casion declared my conviction, that the tolls 
 were now too high for the purposes both of 
 commerce and revenue. About one third 
 of the present rates is above the constitu- 
 tional requirement. That excess, in my 
 judgment, might be taken off with advan- 
 tage to the commerce of the country and 
 ihe canal revenue. My colleague has made 
 statements to illustrate the effect of reduc- 
 tion of tolls to increase transportation. 1 
 agree perfectly in the fact of such tendency, 
 though his anticipations of the extent of such 
 increase surpass my own. it is not necessa- 
 ry to give you abundant revenue with redu- 
 ced tolls, that the increase should equal his 
 calculations. Half the present tolls will give 
 you a plentiful revenue. A quarter of the 
 present rates will yield it so generously, that 
 you may fulfil all the implied obligations of 
 the state, extend its usefulness, exalt its cha- 
 racter, and satisfy all the high expectations 
 that your former acts have excited. Those 
 rates should be adjusted with reference to 
 the interests of the community, and should 
 never be oppressive. 
 
 My colleague urges the abolition of the 
 canal tolls for the purpose of extending the 
 benefits of the canals. He contends that, by 
 this process, a section on each side of the 
 canals, and parallel to them would be admit- 
 ted to a participation in the privileges of the 
 canals which are now debarred by the ex- 
 pense of transportation, and he exhibits the 
 strips of country that would be so benefitted. 
 The statement and the argument are undoubt- 
 edly true, but he seems not to have perceiv- 
 ed that to make this extension of privileges, 
 great additional advantages must be conferr- 
 ed upon the sections of the country now in 
 the full enjoyment of the benefits of the canals, 
 and which do not need any extension, while 
 no benefits whatever would be conferred upon 
 
 other portions of the state equally meritorious 
 &l now suffering from the deprivation of com- 
 mercial facilities. His plan would surfeit with 
 blessings those who do not need them, and ex- 
 tend them not at all to those who want and de- 
 serve them most. Yet, for this partial and im- 
 perfect extension of canal accommodations, 
 the canal tolls are to be sacrificed . 
 
 My plan is to extend those benefits latter- 
 ally by a reduction of tolls, and to raise rev- 
 enue by the imposition of moderate and 
 reasonable tolls, and extend similar advanta- 
 ges to other and more remote sections of the 
 state by the construction of tributary canals. 
 In this way you will swell the amount ofyour 
 canal revenues, increase your commerce, and 
 render equal and exact justice to all the in- 
 habitants of the state. 
 
 I will now proceed to shew you the propri- 
 ety of the plan I have offered as a substitute 
 for a tax, and its sufficiency for all the pub- 
 lic exigencies. The bill on your table pro- 
 poses a tax for two years. My plan intends 
 to provide for the support of the government 
 for two years, and then indicates a different 
 mode of support for the future, so as to ren- 
 der taxation forever unnecessary. This sub- 
 stitute provides for the transfer of the bonds 
 and mortgages, and other good securities 
 belonginglo the general fund, to the litera- 
 ture and common school funds, in exchange 
 for money. And to enable those funds to 
 purchase them it further provides for the 
 purchase and redemption, with money be- 
 longing to the canal lund, of the canal stocks 
 now held by those funds. Those stocks 
 amount to $420,000, and bear an interest of 
 five per cent. The effect of the whole ope- 
 ration, will be to benefit the literature and 
 common school funds, by giving them good 
 securities bearing an interest of six per cent, 
 in exchange for five percent, stocks, thereby 
 increasing their income. It will also benefit 
 the canal fund by investing a portion of the 
 money belonging to it, which lately produced 
 interest at only 3 1-2 and now 4 1-2 per 
 cent, in stocks at 5 per cent. The further 
 advantage of this plan, is, that it will supply 
 the general fund with money for the purposes 
 of government. 
 
 I will now shew that the general fund is 
 sufficient for all your wants for two years, 
 the proposed duration of the tax. First let 
 us ascertain what you do want. The ordi- 
 nary, estimated expenses of the government 
 are a little short of $270,000 a year, to which 
 must now be added the interest on the debt 
 to Mr. Astor — this will be about $28,000. 
 Allow then $77,000 annually for extraordina- 
 ry expenditures (a sum ej'ceeding recent 
 precedent) and the whole amount of your 
 expenses will be $375,000 a year. 
 
The next point is to shew you that your 
 general fund will be sufficient. 
 
 That fund, according to the comptroller 
 and the committee, consists of good securi- 
 ties & stocks amounting to $684,071 , and pro- 
 ducing in interest $41,044,28. But if we use 
 portions of the capital, according to the pro- 
 ositions of the substitute, the interest will 
 e diminished. I have theretore estimated 
 it at only $24,000. There are other sources 
 of revenue, which 1 have taken according to 
 the comptroller’s estimate- 
 
 The means of the government will there- 
 
 fore stand as follows : 
 
 General fund, $684,071 
 
 Interest, 24,000 
 
 Fees of officers, 1,000 
 
 Pedlar’s licences, 1,400 
 
 Interest on arrears of county taxes, 4,000 
 
 Miscellaneous receipts, 2,000 
 
 First payments on sales of land, 20,000 
 
 $736,471 
 
 One year’s expenditure, 375,000 
 
 $361,471 
 
 Interest, 12,000 
 
 Other receipts as before, 28,400 
 
 $401,871 
 
 Second year’s expenditure, 375,000 
 
 26,871 
 
 This statement shews that the general 
 fund is sufficient to carry you through the 
 two years for which the tax is proposed, with 
 a prospect of a balance at the end of near 
 27,000 dollars — allow that for casualties. 
 The general fund will also be increased by 
 the sales of land, the securities taken upon 
 such sales may be transferred to the litera- 
 ture and common school funds according to 
 the process provided in the substitute, if the 
 necessities of the government require. 
 
 It is evident therefore thatyou have abun- 
 dant means for all the purposes of the gov- 
 ernment for which you propose to tax. A 
 resort to taxation is then therefore unneces- 
 sary. If you must have recourse to that 
 method of raising money finally, why not 
 postpone it until your present means are ex- 
 hausted ? But if you impose the tax now, 
 what are you to do at the expiration of the 
 period ? You will then be in no better con- 
 dition to dispense with taxation. If the rea- 
 soning in favor of taxation now be sound, it 
 will be equally powerful and sufficient then. 
 The committee have proposed no plan for 
 the future supply of the treasury. If you tax 
 now, your general fund will not be materially 
 increased within two years, and you propose 
 410 substitute for taxation ; you may therefore 
 
 as well make It perpetual. I propose to dis- 
 pense with taxation forever, and have there- 
 fore submitted a proposition for the future 
 support of the government. That is, to trans- 
 fer the auction and salt duties from the canal 
 fund to the general fund. That requires an 
 amendment of the constitution and 1 have 
 accordingly introduced a resolution having 
 that foi its object. If that resolution pass 
 this and the next legislature and meet the 
 approbation of the people, it will take effect 
 at the expiration of two years, and will sup- 
 ply your treasuiy immediately upon the ex- 
 haustion of the general fund. I desire to 
 submit that question to the people. If they 
 approve of the resolution, and the consequent 
 transfer of those revenues, it will be decisive 
 evidence that they disapprove of taxation. 
 If they reject the resolution, it may then be 
 assumed that public sentiment is in favor of 
 raising by taxation the supplies necessary 
 for the government. You may then make 
 taxation perpetual. But I desire that you 
 should ask the people, and I will be as ready 
 as you, to abide their answer. 
 
 The auction and salt duties will be suffi- 
 cient for all your wants. They produced 
 last year over $405,000 of clear revenue. 
 That sum exceeds your annual expenditure. 
 If the transfer be made 3 T ou will have an 
 abundant provision tor the future, as well 
 as the present supply of your treasun^ — 
 the canal fund does not need theseresources. 
 Its revenues will be excessive without them. 
 You took them from the general fund when 
 they yielded only about $124,000, and you 
 can now return them to it more than trebled 
 in productiveness. They have rendered es- 
 sential service to the canals, and the canals 
 have chiefly caused this increase in their 
 value. 
 
 But gentlemen say this is borrowing, and 
 they represent me as having said, on a for- 
 mer occasion, that borrowing was the “sim- 
 ple process of simple men.” With one ad- 
 dition, I adopt the sentiment — “Borrowing, 
 without necessit}', is the simple process of 
 simple men.” The committee in their re- 
 port repiesent our financial condition to be 
 such that there is no alternative afforded us 
 but borrowing or taxation. I resist their 
 reasoning — deny the accuracy of their state- 
 ments, and dissent from their conclusions. 
 
 I insist that such is not our condition, and 
 maintain that both alike are unnecessary. 
 It is clear that my plan contemplates no bor- 
 rowing. When a man borrows he contracts 
 a debt, either upon a pledge of his credit or 
 his property. When he sells his properly 
 and receives payment, he does not borrow' 
 the money. No man borrows when he gives 
 | an equivalent for the money he receives , 
 
16 
 
 and the transaction is absolute, unaccompa- 
 nied with any stipulation for a return. This 
 illustrates the difference between borrowing 
 and the plan 1 have proposed. The process 
 requires exchanges between your several 
 funds, but neither becomes the debtor of the 
 other. The transaction is completed and 
 each fund is a gainer by the operation — 
 where then is the borrowing? 
 
 But it is asserted that we owe Mr. Astor! 
 nearly the amount of the general fund, and 
 therefore it is inferred that we have no such 
 fund. Do gentlemen who make this asser- 
 tion propose to apply the general fund to the 
 payment of Mr. Astor’s claim ? Not so. 
 Far different is the disposition made of that 
 debt. The chairman who introduced the 
 bill for taxation introduced also a bill for the 
 settlement of that claim by the issue of stock. 
 In that way that claim is for the present ad- 
 justed. What pertinency then is there in 
 speaking of that debt in reference to the 
 general fund ? No part of that fund has been 
 applied to its payment, nor is there any in- ! 
 tention to make such application. If he ; 
 would take it, good policy would not permit 
 the use of it, for his payment. Alore espe-| 
 daily, if, in consequence thereof, a resort, 
 must be had to taxation. He is willing to; 
 take stock redeemable, on time, at four perj 
 cent. Payment of his demand with the' 
 general fund, and a resort to taxation, as a ! 
 financial operation, would be raising money I 
 at per cent, to pay a debt bearing interest at! 
 per cent. 
 
 But you may inquire. How shall the debt 
 to Mr. Astor be paid ? I answer, out of the j 
 funds which must accumulate from existing 
 sources of revenue. You are destined to | 
 have that accumulation. Causes now exist- 
 ing will produce it. You have nothing to 
 do but to permit your revenues to flow into 
 your treasury from channels already open 
 and prolific, and you will have an amount 
 of fund dangerous from its magnitude, andj 
 for which you have no earthly appropriation. 
 By the constitution the canal toils can nei-| 
 ther be reduced below the constitutional es-j 
 tablishment, nor diverted from the purpose j 
 to which they are pledged, “before the full ! 
 and complete payment of the canal debt.” | 
 That event cannot happen until July, 1840. ! 
 Not because you will not have ample means, j 
 but because you cannot compel payment at' 
 an earlier day. The canal fund is now $2,- 
 051,000, which has been chiefly accumuiat-i 
 ed in four years, and the canal revenues, | 
 which have produced it, for the two last | 
 years have increased at the rate of about | 
 
 $250,000 annually. If no part of those re, 
 enues should be diverted, and should co : 
 tinue to increase at the same rate, you v 
 have on the first of January, 1847, after p- 
 ment of all the debt for which those reven- 
 are pledged, a fund of more than thii 
 millions of dollars. An amount larger th : 
 
 1 the whole bank capital of the state. i 
 But my plan contemplates a transfer 
 the auction and salt revenues from the car 
 fund to the general fund, by which a porti 
 of this dangerous accumulation will be pi 
 vented. But still you will have a great fuf 
 for which you have now no destined u 
 Let us ascertain its probable amount, if t[ 
 transfer takes place. There will be t 
 years of full revenue before it can be effie< 
 ed. Calculating at the same rate of incre. 
 as has been experienced for the two 1 
 years, the canal fund will be, on the firsti 
 January, 1834, $5,300,000. But take it a? 
 millions, and reckon interest at 4 per c- 
 only, although you now receive four an 
 half. Estimate, also, that there will be 
 increase of tolls, contrary to all past ex 
 rience and future probability, and calcul 
 the annual surplus of the canal tolls over 
 expenditure at only $500,000, a sum 1 
 than the last year’s surplus from tolls alo 
 and you will still have an immense fu 
 Calculating upon these data, so much m 
 unfavorable than past results would just 
 and you will have on the first of Janu 
 .1847, after payment of all the canal d 
 for which those revenues are pledged, a ft 
 of more than $11,500,000 then entirely 
 i ncumbered, and applicable to any purp 
 of public use. I would pay the debt to 
 Astor as I would pay all the other d 
 which you may then have, out of that fu 
 You will still have left a largersum than 
 largest amount of your general fund. ^ 
 are destined, and, if you will so consider 
 you are doomed to have this great accu 
 lation. When such is the clear prospt 
 which nothing but unforseen and unpr 
 dented calamities can prevent, how ca 
 be pretended that there is any necessity 
 a resort either to taxation or loans lor 
 supply of the treasury. To avoid such 
 alternative requires nothing but a prud 
 and judicious management of your exis' 
 finances. You have enough for the pres 
 and more than enough in certain prospe 
 for all your imaginable wants. And it 
 finances of this state shall be managed y 
 proper judgment and discretion, the peo 
 may be forever free from direct taxation 
 the support of their government. 
 
 Note. , The bill imposing a tax was rejected, and the substitute offered by Mr. Mayn 
 adopted, 18 to 5, and passed the assembly nearly unanimously".