Hoarded money 1%
Jewelry, plate, furniture ½%
Goods sold at auction 10%
Imports 2%
Insurance premiums (companies not chartered by State) 2%
Playing cards, pack $1 00
Gold watches, each 1 00
Gold chains, silver watches, clocks 50
Articles raffled off 10%
Legacies, profits and sales, incomes 5%
Profits of Confederate Contractors 10%
Wages of Confederate officials 10%
Race tracks 10%
Billiard tables, each $150 00
Bagatelle 20 00
Ten-pin alleys, each 40 00
Readings and Lectures, each 4 00
Peddler 100 00
“Spirit rapper,” per day 500 00
Saloon Keeper $40 to 150 00
Daguerreotypist 10 to 100 00
Slave trader, for each slave offered for sale 20 00
In 1863 a tax of 37½% was laid on Confederate and State bonds not in the
hands of the original purchasers;[7] 7½% was levied on profits of
banking, railroad companies, and on evidence of debt; 5% on other
profits not included in the act of the year before. The tax on gold and
silver was to be paid in gold and silver; on bank notes, in notes; on
bonds, in coupons.[8] In December 1864, the taxes levied by the laws of
1862 and 1863 were increased by 33⅓%. Taxes on gold and silver were to
be paid in kind or in currency at its market value.[9] This was the last
tax levied by the State under Confederate rule. From these taxes the
State government was largely supplied.
A number of special laws were passed to enable the county authorities to
levy taxes-in-kind or to levy a certain amount in addition to the State
tax, for the use of the county. The taxes levied by the State did not
bear heavily upon the majority of the people, as nearly all, except the
well-to-do and especially the slave owners, were exempt. The constant
depreciation of the currency acted, of course, as a tax on the wage
earners and salaried classes and on those whose income was derived from
government securities.
While the State taxes were felt chiefly by the wealthier agricultural
classes and the slave owners, this was not the case with the Confederate
taxes. The loans and gifts from the State, the war tax of August 19,
1861, the $15,000,000 loan, the Produce Loan, and the proceeds of
sequestration—all had not availed to secure sufficient supplies. The
Produce Loan of 1862 was subscribed to largely in Alabama, the secretary
of the Treasury issuing stocks and bonds in return for supplies,[10] and
$1,500,000 of the $15,000,000 loan was raised in the State. Still the
Confederate government was in desperate need. The farmers would not
willingly sell their produce for currency which was constantly
decreasing in value, and, when selling at all, they were forced to
charge exorbitant prices because of the high prices charged them for
everything by the speculators.[11] The speculator also ran up the prices
of supplies beyond the reach of the government purchasing agents, who
had to buy according to the list of prices issued by impressment
commissioners. So in the spring of 1863, all other expedients were cast
aside and the Confederate government levied the most drastic sort of a
tax. No more loans of paper money from the State, no more assumption of
war taxes by the State because the people were opposed to any form of
direct taxation, no more holding back of supplies by producers and
speculators who refused to sell to the Confederate government except for
coin—the new law stopped all that.[12]
First there was a tax of 8% on all agricultural products in hand on July
1, 1863, on salt, wine and liquors, and 1% on all money and credits.
Second, an occupation tax ranging from $50 to $200 and from 2½% to 20%
of their gross sales was levied on bankers, auctioneers, brokers,
druggists, butchers, “fakirs,” liquor dealers, merchants, pawn-brokers,
lawyers, physicians, photographers, brewers, and distillers; hotels paid
from $30 to $500 and theatres, $500. Third, there was an income tax of
1% on salaries from $1,000 to $1,500 and 2% on all over $1,500. Fourth,
10% on all trade in flour, bacon, corn, oats, and dry goods during 1863.
Fifth, a tax-in-kind, by which each farmer after reserving 50 bushels of
sweet and 50 bushels of Irish potatoes, 20 bushels of peas or beans, 100
bushels of corn or 50 bushels of wheat out of his crop of 1863, had to
deliver (at a dépôt within eight miles,) out of the remainder of his
produce for that year, 10% of all wheat, corn, oats, rye, buckwheat,
rice, sweet and Irish potatoes, hay, fodder, sugar, molasses, cotton,
wool, tobacco, peas, beans, and peanuts; 10% of all meat killed between
April 24, 1863 and March 1, 1864; and 1% of the horses, mules and cattle
held on November 1, 1863.[13]
By this act $9,500,000 in currency was raised in Alabama. Alabama, with
Georgia and North Carolina, furnished two-thirds of the tax-in-kind.
Though at first there was some objection to this tax because it bore
entirely on the agricultural classes, yet it was a just tax so far as
the larger planters were concerned, since the depreciated money had
acted as a tax on the wage-earners and salaried classes, who had also
some State tax to pay. The tax-in-kind fell heavily upon the families of
small farmers in the white counties, who had no negro labor, and who
produced no more than the barest necessaries of life. To collect the tax
required an army of tithe-gatherers, and afforded fine opportunities of
escape from military service. The State was divided into districts for
the collection of all Confederate taxes, with a State collector at the
head. The collection districts were usually counties, following the
State division into taxing districts. In 1864, the tobacco tithe was
collected by Treasury agents and not by the quartermaster’s department,
which had formerly collected it.[14] The tax of April 24, 1863, was
renewed on February 17, 1864, and some additional taxes laid as follows:
Real estate and personal property 5%
Gold and silverware and jewelry 10%
Coin 5%
Credits 5%
Profits on liquors, produce, groceries and dry goods 10%
On June 10, 1864, an additional tax of 20% of the tax for 1864 was laid,
payable only in Confederate Treasury notes of the new issue. Four days
later an additional tax[15] was levied as follows:
Real estate and personal property and coin 5%
Gold and silver ware 10%
Profits on liquors, produce, groceries & dry goods 30%
Treasury notes of old issue (after January, 1865) 100%
The taxes during the war, State and Confederate, were in all five to ten
times those levied before the war. Never were taxes paid more willingly
by most of the people,[16] though at first there was opposition to them.
It is probable that the authorities did not in 1861 and 1862 give
sufficient consideration to the fact that conditions were much changed,
and that in view of the war the people would willingly have paid taxes
that they would have rebelled against in times of peace.
Of the tax-in-kind for 1863, $100,000 was collected in Pickens county
alone, one of the poorest in the State. The produce was sent in too
freely to be taken care of by the government quartermasters, and, as
there was enough on hand for a year or two, much of it was ruined for
lack of storage room.[17] An English traveller in East Alabama in 1864
reported that there was abundance; that the tax-in-kind was working
well, and that enough provisions had already been collected for the
Western armies of the Confederacy to last until the harvest of 1865.[18]
There were few railroads in the State and the rolling stock on these was
scarce and soon worn out. So the supplies gathered by the tax-in-kind
law could not be moved. Hundreds of thousands of pounds of beef and
bacon, and bushels of corn were piled up in the government warehouses
and at the dépôts, while starvation threatened the armies and the people
also in districts remote from the railroads or rivers. At the supply
centers of Alabama and along the railroads in the Black Belt there were
immense stores of provisions. When the war ended, notwithstanding the
destruction by raids, great quantities of corn and bacon were seized or
destroyed by the Northern troops.[19]
IMPRESSMENT.
The State quite early began to secure supplies by impressment. Salt was
probably the first article to which it laid claim. Later the officials
were authorized to impress and pay for supplies necessary for the public
service. In 1862, the Governor was authorized to impress shoes and
leather, and other shoemakers’ materials for the use of the army. The
Legislature appropriated $250,000 to pay for impressments under this
law.[20] In case of a refusal to comply with an order of impressment,
the sheriff was authorized to summon a _posse comitatus_ of not less
than twenty men and seize double the quantity first impressed. In such
cases no compensation was given.[21] The people resisted the impressment
of their property. By a law of October 31, 1862, the Governor was
impowered to impress slaves, and tools and teams for them to work with,
in the public service against the enemy, and $1,000,000 was appropriated
to pay the owners.[22] Slaves were regularly impressed by the
Confederate officials acting in co-operation with the State authorities,
for work on fortifications and for other public service. Several
thousand were at work at Mobile at various times. They were secured
usually by requisition on the State government, which then impressed
them. In December, 1864, Alabama was asked for 2,500 negroes for the
Confederate service.[23] The people were morbidly sensitive about their
slave property and there was much discontent at the impressment of
slaves even though they were paid for. As the war drew to a close, the
people were less and less willing to have their servants impressed.
In the spring of 1863, the Confederate Congress authorized the
impressment of private property for public use.[24] The Confederate
President and the Governor each appointed an agent, and these together
fixed the prices to be paid for the property taken.[25] Every two months
they published schedules of prices, which were always below the market
prices.[26] Evidently impressment had been going on for some time, for,
in November, 1862, Judge Dargan, member of Congress from Alabama, wrote
to the President that the people from the country were afraid to bring
produce to Mobile for fear of seizure by the government. In November,
1863, the Secretary of War issued an order that no supplies should be
impressed when held by a person for his own consumption or that of his
employees or slaves, or while being carried to market for sale, except
in urgent cases and by order of a commanding general. Consequently the
land was filled with agents buying a year’s supply for railroad
companies, individuals, manufactories, and corporations, relief
associations, towns, and counties—all these to be protected from
impressment. Most speculators always had their goods “on the way to
market for sale.” The great demand caused prices to rise suddenly, and
the government, which had to buy by scheduled prices, could not compete
with private purchasers; yet it could not legally impress. There was
much abuse of the impressment law, especially by unauthorized persons.
It was the source of much lawless conduct on the part of many who
claimed to be Confederate officials, with authority to impress.[27] The
Legislature frequently protested against the manner of execution of the
law. In 1863, a State law was passed which indicates that the people had
been suffering from the depredations of thieves who pretended to be
Confederate officials in order to get supplies. It was made a penal
offense in 1862 and again in 1863, with from one to five years’
imprisonment and $500 to $5,000 fine, to falsely represent oneself as a
Confederate agent, contractor or official.[28] The merchants of Mobile
protested against the impressment of sugar and molasses; it would cause
prices to double, they said.[29] There was much complaint from sufferers
who were never paid by the Confederate authorities for the supplies
impressed. Army quartermasters would sometimes seize the necessary
supplies and would leave with the army before settling accounts with the
citizens, the latter often being left without any proof of their claim.
In North Alabama, especially, where the armies never tarried long at a
place, the complaint was greatest. To do away with this abuse resulting
from carelessness, the Secretary of War appointed agents in each
Congressional district to receive proof of claims for forage and
supplies impressed.[30] The State wanted a Confederate law passed to
authorize receipts for supplies to be given as part of the
tax-in-kind.[31] The unequal operation of the impressment system may be
seen in the case of Clarke and Monroe counties. In the former, from
sixteen persons, property amounting to $1,700 was impressed. In Monroe,
from thirty-seven persons, $60,000 worth was taken. The delay in payment
was so long that it was practically worthless when received.[32]
(_Concluded next month._)
[Illustration: Fleuron]
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS
IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN THE ROYAL COLONY OF NEW YORK.
CHAPTER I
THE PRESS IN ENGLAND BEFORE THE NINETEENTH CENTURY
Immediately on the introduction of printing the Church assumed towards
it an attitude at once intimate and watchful. Since all that affected
the welfare of the mind and the health of the soul was of importance to
the Church, it was not at all surprising that the demand was at once
made that nothing should be put forth by the press save that which had
received the sanction—the “Imprimatur”—of the Diocesan authority, or
later of the official delegated by the personal representative of the
Papacy. The rules that were laid down for the direction of the printer
were full and explicit, and no resistance seems to have been attempted
at the period of the Reformation in England, the power of supervision
over all forms of printing passed from the hands of the Church to the
civil authority. This followed naturally from the theory that the King,
as Head of the Church, inherited all rights of oversight in matters of
opinion and morals formerly pertaining to the Pope, and exercised in
England by the Bishops in his name. The Henrician and Elizabethan
Bishops still gave the “Imprimatur,” but it was now as representing the
King. The fact of publication without authority was in itself a crime
deserving of severe punishment.[33]
A further step in the restriction of printing was the establishment (in
line with the general tendencies of the time), of monopolies by patent.
In 1557 the Stationers’ Company was formed of ninety-seven London
stationers, and to it was committed the sole right to print books
licensed by the proper authority.[34] As representing the Sovereign, the
Star Chamber exercised a supervision over the manner in which the law
was carried out; in 1559 it ordered that all books were to read by a
Bishop or a member of the Privy Council before going to the press, and
in 1586 gave permission for a printing press to be set up in each
University, the licenser in this case being the Vice Chancellor. In the
same year the Star Chamber ordered that all books were to be read and
licensed by the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Bishop of London, with
the exception of law books which were to be read by the Chief Justice of
either Bench or the Lord Chief Baron.
Proclamations issued by Queen Elizabeth from time to time,[35] indicate
the difficulty found in enforcing this monopoly and requirement of
licensing, and a proclamation issued by Elizabeth[36] against “bringing
into the realm unlawful books” indicates that the statute of Henry
VIII[37] repealing the permission given in the reign of Richard III to
import books from abroad[38] was being systematically disregarded.
Attorney-general Popham gives witness to the same effect when in his
speech before the Star Chamber in the prosecution of Sir R. Knightley
and others he says, “Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, in her great wisdom,
hath issued proclamations that no pamphlets or treatises should be put
in print but such as should first be seen and allowed; and further, lest
that were not sufficient, she ordained that no printing should be used
anywhere but in London, Oxford, or Cambridge. Notwithstanding all this
served not, but they would print in corners and spread abroad things
unprinted: wherefore Her Majesty set forth a proclamation _in anno 25_
that all Brownist books, and such other seditious books should be
suppressed and burnt.[39]
The Star Chamber continued to exercise control over printing during the
reign of James I, but with increasing difficulty, not lessened by the
arbitrary and cruel ways in which it acted towards those whom it
believed to be breaking its rules and regulations. The flood of books
printed abroad continued into the reign of Charles I, and in 1637 we
find a Star Chamber decree, “for reducing the number of master-printers,
and punishing all others that should follow the trade, and for
prohibiting as well the impression of all new books without license, and
of such as have been licensed formerly without a new one, as the
importation of all books in the English tongue, printed abroad, and of
all foreign books whatever, till a true catalogue has been presented to
the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishop of London, and the books
themselves had been received by their chaplains, or other learned men of
their appointment, together with the masters and wardens of the
Stationers’ Company.” A printer disobeying this order was to be fined,
disabled from printing thereafter and the printing press forfeited.
The quarrel between Charles I and the Long Parliament resulted in the
abolition of the Star Chamber, but the only result, as far as the press
was concerned, was a change in masters, the Crown giving place to
Parliament. From time to time orders were issued by the Parliament[40]
similar in tone to those of the Star Chamber. One dated June 14, 1643,
directs that “no book, pamphlet, paper, nor part of any such book,
pamphlet, or paper, shall from henceforth be printed, bound, stitched,
or put out to sale, by any person or persons whatsoever unless the same
be first approved and licensed under the hands of such persons as both,
or either, of the Houses, shall appoint for licensing of the same, and
be entered in the Register Book of the Company of Stationers, according
to ancient custom, and the printer thereof shall put his name thereto.”
It was in reply to this action by Parliament that Milton produced in
1644 his “Areopagitica,” that matchless plea for freedom of speech and
the liberty of the press. “We should be wary therefore,” he writes,
“what persecution we raise against the living labours of public men, how
we spill that seasoned life of man, preserved and stored up in books;
since we see a kind of homicide may be thus committed, sometimes a
martyrdom; and if it extend to the whole impression, a kind of massacre,
whereof the execution ends not in the slaying of an elemental life, but
strikes at the ethereal and fifth essence, the breath of reason itself;
slays an immortality rather than a life.”[41]
But these stirring words fell on ears dulled by the clamor of contending
battalions. It is true that from time to time a report of proceedings in
Parliament appeared under the title of “Diurnal Occurrences in
Parliament,” but in general Parliament was ever ready to crush at its
first appearance any spirit considered by the members to be dangerous to
constituted authority. On Sept. 30, 1647, Parliament, at the instigation
of Fairfax, passed an ordinance, “for the better regulation of
printing,” by which the restrictions were increased and a licenser
appointed to whom before printing, all manuscripts had to be presented
for approbation.
With the Restoration of Charles II the control of the press was
continued by means of the Licensing Act of 1662, passed several times
for periods of two years, finally expiring in 1679.[42] This was
essentially a republication of the Star Chamber order of 1637, but since
the Star Chamber no longer existed the scene was changed from that Court
to the Old Bailey. In 1679, at the trial of Henry Carr,[43] indicted for
some passages in a weekly paper, the Lord Chief Justice Scroggs declared
it criminal at common law to “write on the subject of government,
whether in terms of praise or censure, it is not material; for no man
has a right to say anything of government.” In 1685, on the accession of
James II, the Licensing Act was passed for a period of seven years, and
in 1692, (during the reign of William and Mary), it was renewed for one
year and the session of the following Parliament. In 1695 the House of
Commons refused to again pass it, and in this way the Act expired, never
to be renewed, and the press was placed on a footing of equality before
the law with all other trades and occupations. And yet, as has been well
pointed out by Macaulay,[44] the reasons given by the Parliament for
their action did not in any way touch on the question of the
rightfulness of a free press, but rather dealt with certain complaints
in regard to the provisions of the law and the mode of application.
“This paper,” he writes, “completely vindicates the resolution to which
the Commons had come. But it proves at the same time that they knew not
what they were doing, what a power they were calling into existence.
They pointed out concisely, clearly, forcibly, and sometimes with a
grave irony which is not unbecoming, the absurdities and iniquities of
the statute which was about to expire. But all their objections will be
found to relate to matters of detail. On the great question of
principle, on the question whether the liberty of unlicensed printing
be, on the whole, a blessing or a curse to society, not a word is said.
The Licensing Act is condemned, not as a thing essentially evil, but on
account of the petty grievances, the exactions, the jobs, the commercial
restrictions, the domiciliary visits, which were incidental to it. It is
pronounced mischievous because it enables the Company of Stationers to
extort money from publishers, because it empowers agents of the
government to search houses under the authority of general warrants,
because it confines the foreign book trade to the port of London,
because it detains packages of books at the Custom House till the pages
are mildewed. The Commons complain that the amount of the fee which the
licensers may demand is not fixed. They complain that it is made penal
in an officer of the Customs to open a box of books from abroad, except
in the presence of one of the censors of the press. How, it is very
sensibly asked, is the officer to know that there are books in the box
until he has opened it?” Such were the arguments which did what Milton’s
“Areopagitica” had failed to do. But what we mean to-day by the term,
the liberty of the press, is much more than the mere right to print
without a previous application to a censor. The position which the press
holds in this generation is the result of a slow but steady growth.
After the refusal by Parliament to renew the Licensing Act the courts
still did their best to prevent the reaping of any benefit from this.
Newspaper reporting, and especially the reporting of Parliamentary
debates was frowned on by Bench and Parliament alike. In 1722 the House
of Commons passed the resolution “That no printer or publisher of any
printed newspaper do presume to insert in any such papers any debates or
other proceedings of this house or any committee thereof” and when
Edward Cave in 1731 began to publish in his “Gentleman’s Magazine” a
report of the debates he had to resort to the fiction of a “Senate of
Great Lilliput” and even then lived in continual fear of prosecution.