REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNAL REVENUE ACT,
MAKING BOOKS FREE, FEBRUARY 27, 1865.
February 27th, the Senate had under consideration a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Act, by striking out of the
clause relating to printed books the word “magazines,” and by
inserting after the word “newspapers” the words “and periodical
magazines,” so that it would read: “On all printed books,
pamphlets, reviews, and all other similar printed books, except
newspapers and periodical magazines, a duty of five per cent
ad valorem.” In commenting on this proposition and another
adopted by the House, Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, remarked: “I almost
became a convert to the idea of the Senator from Massachusetts,
and that it would be better to strike out the whole clause,
rather than to attempt to make these discriminations and
qualifications and exceptions.” Mr. Sumner followed.
I am very glad to hear the Senator from Ohio say that he had become
almost a convert to the idea of removing all tax on books. He reminded
me of a certain person who was “almost persuaded to be a Christian.”
I think it would be better for the Senator, had he become a complete
convert. I am sure his influence would be better for the country.
I speak from no motive of self, and from no personal interest whatever,
but from a profound conviction that for the best interests of the
country there should be no tax on books. What you can extort out of
this tax, in any event, is very small; and it is always a tax on
knowledge. Look at it as you will, to that complexion it comes at last.
I do not think it worth while for Congress to adopt such a tax. It is
the boast of our institutions that they stand upon the intelligence of
the people, and it is a further boast that we supply education for all
at the public cost; but books are indispensable in this benefaction.
Every tax upon books, therefore, is an impediment to that education
which is the pride of our country. Plainly it is inconsistent with the
genius of our institutions. The result of this tax will be petty, but,
to the extent of its influence, prejudicial.
Mr. Sumner moved to strike out the whole clause. Then, in reply
to Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, he remarked:--
The Senator from New Hampshire does not quite like to tax the Bible.
Sir, I do not like to tax it. My proposition is broader than his; but
he knows very well that the real signification of _Bible_ is _book_.
MR. CLARK. Not in our language.
MR. SUMNER. I do not know about that. The Senator does plead, however,
for the manufacturer of the shirt, whose shop is by the side of the
bookseller; but the difference between the two cases is, as I have
indicated: that, if you tax the book, you tax knowledge; if you tax
the shirt, you but tax one of the general manufactures of the country.
The distinction may not be accepted by all; and yet to my mind it is
perfectly clear. You cannot tax a book without taxing knowledge. But it
is said there are books that might very well be taxed out of existence.
Where run the line? How make the discrimination? The trouble is more
than it is worth. Better, therefore, have no such tax than run any
such line or make any such discrimination. A book is a book; and there
should be no tax on a book.
Afterwards, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, he
remarked:--
I have only one word in reply to the learned Senator from Maryland.
He does not regard a tax on books as a tax on knowledge. Pray, then,
what is such a tax? I can imagine no tax more directly on knowledge.
If the Senator can, I should like to have him indicate it. Possibly
he can. I believe he cannot. If we repair to the experience of other
countries, we find that books are not taxed. In England, where taxation
is carried to the farthest point, we know that books are not taxed.
We know, also, that, after long and protracted struggle, only during
this last year was the last tax on knowledge overthrown, being the
paper duty. And yet, Sir, Senators would take up the cast-off taxes of
Great Britain, and do even worse. Great Britain has taxed paper, has
imposed a stamp-tax also on newspapers, all of which have been latterly
removed; but I am not aware that this taxing nation has imposed a tax
upon books. And shall our Republic, founded on knowledge, whose duty
and mission are to make knowledge cheap, impose, for the first time, a
tax on books?
Mr. Wilson said: “I shall vote against exempting from taxation
any book whatever, even the Bible.… I am against these
exemptions. What, Sir! a tax on books a tax on knowledge?
Suppose it is: so is a tax on the coat the boy who goes to
school wears.”