he liked the new modification on the whole better than that in the

first report.

The question was taken on the report for appointing a President by Electors, and carried by a vote of nine States against two.

An amendment was moved that the Electors meet at the seat of the general government, but only one State voted for this provision. Mr. Spaight, of North Carolina, said if the election by Electors was to be crammed down, he would prefer their meeting all together and deciding finally, without any reference to the Senate, and again moved that the Electors meet at the seat of government.

This was again voted down.

An amendment was then adopted adding the words," but the election shall be on the same day throughout the United States."

Roger Sherman suggested that it would be better that the House of Representatives should elect, in case of a tie, or the want of a majority in the Electoral vote. He moved to strike out the words "the Senate shall immediately choose," and insert “the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President, the members from each State having one vote."

Mr. Mason liked this mode best, as lessening the aristocratical influence of the Senate.

The question being taken, ten States voted yea, and one State (Delaware) voted nay.

Thus the Electoral system was at length incorporated into the Constitution on the 6th of September, 1787-the Convention having been in continuous session over four months. Ten days later the Convention adjourned.

It will be noted (and the fact is most remarkable) that the members of the Convention voted three several times (and once by a unanimous vote of all the States) to make the President elective by the two Houses of Congress; that they voted once to make him elective by a body of Electors chosen by the State Legislatures only · and that they voted finally to make him elective by a body of Electors chosen as the State Legislatures might ordain. The proposition to choose the President by direct vote of the people, though offered and voted on, found so little favor, that only a single State supported it in the Convention, in which twelve States were represented.

A CERTAIN Irish author, in describing a change in religious creed on the part of an eminent person, observed that "he abandoned the errors of the Church of Rome, and embraced those of the Church of England."

IN Voltaire's collected works there are 33,000,000 alphabetical characters. In the Bible, only 3,566,480.

THE HISTORY OF THE INCOME-TAX.

IN considering the question of the expediency of a tax upon incomes as a part of our revenue system, it is well to know precisely what has been done as to an income-tax by former legislation. The country having once derived from an income-tax what would now be equivalent to the heavy proportion of one fifth the annual revenue of the Government, and that within a period not far removed, it will be seen at once how important an item this would form in any reorganization of our system of taxation, which should look to imposing a share of the burdens of government upon property rather than upon the consumption of commodities.

The first income-tax was passed by Congress July 1, 1862, and took effect in the year 1863. It taxed all incomes over $600 and under $10,000 at the rate of three per cent, and on all over $10,000 it levied a tax of five per cent. Owing to the late time of its taking effect, it brought into the Treasury but a small sum prior to the year 1864, when there was collected under the head of income-tax a little over $15,000,000. By the act of March 3, 1865, the income-tax law was amended so as to increase the three per cent tax to five per cent, and the five per cent tax on incomes over $10,000 was changed to a ten per cent tax upon the excess over $5000 income, the exemption of $600 remaining the same. The most of the tax for the year 1865, however, was collected under a former law, and brought into the Treasury not less a sum than $21,000,000 for the fiscal year 1834-65. The following year, 1865-66, the war having ceased, and the country being in a high state of development in all its resources, the income-tax rose to a point the highest ever reached in the history of the tax. The returns for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1866, showed a total revenue from the income tax of $60,547,882.43. This was but little diminished in the following year, 1866-67, when the net revenue from the income-tax footed up $57,040,640.67.

The income-tax act was further amended, March 2, 1867, so as to increase the exemption, then standing at $600, up to $1000. At the same time all discrimination as to the taxing of large incomes a higher rate was abolished, and the tax fixed at five per cent on all

incomes in excess of $1000. The act also contained the limitation or proviso that the taxes on incomes should be levied and collected until, and including, the year 1870, and no longer. Under this modified tax there was collected, in the year 1868, the large sum of $32,027,610.78; in 1869, $25,025,068.86; and in the fiscal year ending June 30, 1870, $27,115,046.11.

The agitation against the income-tax, which led finally to its repeal, was perhaps far inore owing to the excess of the rate charged than to any real objection to the tax itself. Special Commissioner David A. Wells, in his report on the revenue system for the year 1869, set forth the fact that an income-tax of five per cent was greater than had ever been imposed by any other nation, except in time of war, or in extraordinary national exigencies. He recommended the reduction of the tax from five per cent to three per cent on all incomes over $1000, accompanying the suggestion with an expression of opinion that an assessment of three per cent would probably yield to the Treasury a sum almost, if not quite equal to that collected at five per cent. The reason assigned for this was, that while the reduction of the rate would afford a great and welcome relief to the classes then paying it, it would at the same time bring within reach of the income-tax law great numbers who had hitherto avoided giving in their receipts at all, or had made imperfect or fraudulent returns, in order to escape the excessive tax. "A tax of five per cent," said Commissioner Wells, "is evidently too high for revenue purposes." He also recommended that the exemption from the income-tax on account of rent, in addition to the $1000 exemption, should be fixed at the maximum of $200. The existing law, as construed in collection, permitted any one to deduct the full amount paid for rent from his annual income. Evidently, no claim could properly be made for the exemption of rent to any large extent which would not be equally valid in support of the exemption of any other class of expenditure. Certainly high rents are as much a luxury as any form of expenditure, and are as little to be considered in exemp tion from income taxation.

The same report of Commissioner Wells (being the last during his term of office) set forth the doctrine, that through an income-tax a larger proportion is contributed to the revenue by the classes best able to afford it than by any other method of taxation whatever. These classes owe most to the protection of the government, and it is certainly a wide departure from the true doctrine and methods of taxation that they should be exempted from the burdens of its support, with the single exception of the tax on consumption, through the tariff, which they bear in common with the poorest in the community.

In meeting the proposition then seriously advocated in many quarters, that the income-tax should be wholly removed, Mr. Wells called

the attention of the country to the fact that the tax was paid during 1868 by only 250,000 persons out of the entire population of almost 40,000,000, and yet that the returns of these persons represented an aggregate income of not less than $800,000,000. Even allowing for the families of these 250,000 contributors, it is evident that only about a million of the population were interested in having the tax repealed, while the remaining 39,000,000 out of 40,000,000 of people in the United States, were interested in having it maintained.

Both the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue supported the recommendation of Special Commissioner Wells in 1869-70 that the income-tax should be retained, although willing to have it reduced to a uniform rate of three per cent on incomes exceeding $1000, with a proper minimum exemption on account of the rent of a family. The question came up in Congress two or three times before the impending expiration of the income-tax by limitation of law. After something of a contest, the tax was renewed for one year only, by act of July 14, 1870, the rate at the same time being reduced to 24 per cent. The exemption was increased to $2000, so that nobody paid the tax for the year 1870–71, except those in such easy circumstances as to be in receipt of more than $2000 per annum. Pending the discussion in the Senate in 1871, on the bill to repeal in effect all income-tax, the tax was opposed by Mr. Scott, of Pennsylvania, Governor Buckingham, of Connecticut, and others, while it was strongly defended by Senator Sherman, and Mr. Morrill, of Vermont. The repeal finally passed the Senate, January 26, 1871, by the close vote of 26 yeas to 25 nays.

In the House of Representatives, the question was raised of jurisdiction between the two Houses, the Senate having presumed to pass a bill connected with the income-tax, while the Constitutional provision declares that all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. This controversy was finally compromised, however. The House, on the 9th of February, 1871, came to a vote on the question of taking up the Senate Bill to repeal the income-tax, when the yeas were 104 and the nays 105, thus showing about as close a division of opinion on the measure as in the Senate, which passed the repeal by one vote only. Thus the matter ran on to the very last day of the session, March 3, 1871, when the House, without taking the yeas and nays, concurred in the report of a committee of conference, which indorsed the Senate Bill, and thus gave effect to the income-tax repeal. The last taxes levied under the law were paid in the year 1871.

A SCOTCH laborer being asked the meaning of metaphysics, defined it as follows: "When the chiel wha listens dinna ken what the chiel wha speaks means, and when the chiel wha speaks dinna ken what he means himsel', that's metapheesics!'

FREE HOMESTEADS ON THE PUBLIC LANDS.

THE fact is not so widely known as it should be, that any one will. ing to work can secure a farm on the public domain of the United States, free of cost.

By our present laws, any citizen or applicant for citizenship, over twenty-one years of age, may enter one quarter section (that is, 160 acres) of any unappropriated public lands, which are subject to preemption at $1.25 per acre. Or he may enter by pre-emption 80 acres of such unappropriated lands, valued and classed at $2.50 per acre by the Government.

This privilege extends to women who may be the heads of families, and each person availing himself or herself of its benefits must make affidavit before the Register of the Land Office of the district in which the entry is to be made, that he or she is the head of a family, or else twenty-one years of age. The affidavit must also set forth that the land entered is for the exclusive use and benefit of the applicant, and for the purpose of actual settlement and cultivation, and not either directly or indirectly for the use or benefit of any other person.

The applicant under the Homestead Law must pay the sum of ten dollars, on filing his affidavit with the Register, and is thereupon permitted to enter the 160 acres, or 80 acres, on payment of five dollars, as the case may be. But no certificate is given or patent issued for the land until the expiration of five years from the date of the entry above provided for. If, at the expiration of five years, or at any time within two years thereafter, the person making such entry or his direct heirs shall prove by two credible witnesses that he, she, or they have resided upon and cultivated the land for five years immediately following the date of its original entry, and shall make affidavit that no part of the land has been alienated, then the settler is entitled to the issue of a patent for the land, without further delay. This patent is a valid title from the United States, and those who have earned it by actual residence and cultivation of the land during the full term of five years have nothing to pay, except the original ten dollars for 160 acres, or five