WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE OF THE UNITED STATES CAN BE COMPARED WITH THAT OF FRANCE.

Two Points to be established in order to estimate the Extent of the Public Charges, viz. the National Wealth, and the Rate of Taxation. — The Wealth and the Charges of France not accurately known. - Why the Wealth and Charges of the Union cannot be accurately known. — Researches of the Author to discover the Amount of Taxation of Pennsylvania.- General Symptoms which may serve to indicate the Amount of the Public Charges in a given Nation. - Result of this Investigation for the Union.

MANY attempts have recently been made in France to compare the public expenditure of that country with the expenditure of the United States. All these attempts have, however, been fruitless; and a few words will suffice to show that they could not have a satisfactory result.

In order to estimate the amount of the public charges of a people, two preliminaries are indispensable: it is necessary, in the first place, to know the wealth of that people; and, in the second, to learn what portion of that wealth is devoted to the expenditure of the state. To show the amount of taxation without showing the resources which are destined to meet it, would be a futile task; for it is not the expenditure, but the relation of the expenditure to the revenue, which it is desirable to know. The same rate of taxation which may easily be supported by a wealthy contributor will reduce a poor one to extreme misery.

The wealth of nations is composed of several elements ; real property is the first of these, and personal property the second. It is difficult to know precisely the amount of cultivable land in a country, and its natural or acquired value; and it is still more difficult to estimate the whole personal property which is at the disposal of a nation, and which eludes the strictest analysis by the diversity and the number of shapes under which it may occur. And, in

deed, we find that the nations of Europe which have been the longest civilized, including even those in which the administration is most centralized, have not succeeded, as yet, in determining the exact amount of their wealth.

In America, the attempt has never been made; for how would such an investigation be possible in a new country, where society has not yet settled into fixed and tranquil habits, where the national government is not assisted by a multitude of agents whose exertions it can command and direct to one end, and where statistics are not studied, because no one is able to collect the necessary documents, or find time to peruse them? Thus the primary elements of the calculations which have been made in France cannot be obtained in the Union; the relative wealth of the two countries is unknown: the property of the former is not yet accurately determined, and no means exist of computing that of the latter.

I consent therefore, for the moment, to abandon this necessary term of the comparison, and I confine myself to a computation of the actual amount of taxation, without investigating the ratio of the taxation to the revenue. But the reader will perceive that my task has not been facilitated by thus narrowing the circle of my researches.

It cannot be doubted that the central administration of France, assisted by all the public officers who are at its disposal, might determine precisely the amount of the direct and indirect taxes levied upon the citizens. But this investigation, which no private individual can undertake, has not hitherto been completed by the French government, or, at least, its results have not been made public. We are acquainted with the sum total of the charges of the state; we know the amount of the departmental expenditure; but the expenses of the communes have not been computed, and the total of the public expenses of France is consequently unknown.

If we now turn to America, we perceive that the diffi culties are multiplied and enhanced. The Union publishes an exact return of the amount of its expenditure; the budgets of the four and twenty States publish similar returns; but the expenses of the counties and the townships are unknown.*

* The Americans, as we have seen, have four separate budgets, — the Union, the States, the counties, and the townships having each severally their own. During my stay in America, I made every endeavor to discover the amount of the public expenditure in the townships and counties of the principal States of the Union; and I readily obtained the budget of the larger townships, but found it quite impossible to procure that of the smaller ones. I possess, however, some documents relating to county expenses which, although incomplete, are still curious. I have to thank Mr. Richards, former Mayor of Philadelphia, for the budgets of thirteen of the counties of Pennsylvania, viz. Lebanon, Centre, Franklin, Fayette, Montgomery, Luzerne, Dauphin, Butler, Alleghany, Columbia, Northampton, Northumberland, and Philadelphia, - for the year 1830. Their population at that time consisted of 495,207 inhabitants. On looking at the map of Pennsylvania, it will be seen that these thirteen counties are scattered in every direction, and so generally affected by the causes which usually influ ence the condition of a country, that they may fairly be supposed to furnish a correct average of the financial state of the counties of Pennsylvania in general. The expenses of these counties amounted, in the year 1830, to about $342,900, or nearly 69 cents for each inhabitant; and, calculating that each of them contributed in the same year about $2.43 towards the Union, and about 72 cents to the State of Pennsylvania, it appears that they each contributed, as their share of all the public expenses (except those of the townships), the sum of $3.84. This calculation is doubly incomplete, as it applies only to a single year and to one part of the public charges; but it has at least the merit of not being conjectural.

[This estimate probably errs by excess. In the American Almanac for 1847, a careful computation, founded on numerous returns, makes the aggre gate of national expenditure for cach inhabitant 97 cents; of State expenditure, 50 cents; of town or city, including county, expenditure, 92 cents; - making the total cost of government for each person $2.39. Mr. Livingston, in a calculation made in 1832, estimated the cost of government in the United States at an average of $2.15 for each person. In 1838, Mr. H. C. Carey of Philadelphia estimated it at $2.19. Allowing for the dif ferences created by the lapse of years, these three estimates, founded on in dependent data, agree remarkably well. - AM. ED.]

The Federal authority cannot oblige the State governments to throw any light upon this point; and even if these governments were inclined to give their simultaneous aid, it may be doubted whether they are able to furnish a satisfactory answer. Independently of the natural difficulties of the task, the political organization of the country would hinder the success of their efforts. The county and town magistrates are not appointed by the authorities of the State, and are not subjected to their control. It is therefore allowable to suppose, that, even if the State was desirous of obtaining the returns which we require, its design would be counteracted by the neglect of those subordinate officers whom it would be obliged to employ.* It is

*Those who have attempted to comparo the expenses of France and America have at once perceived, that no such comparison could be drawn between the total expenditures of the two countries; but they have endeavored to contrast detached portions of this expenditure. It may readily be shown, that this second system is not at all less defective than the first.

If I attempt to compare the French budget with the budget of the Union, it must be remembered that the latter embraces much fewer objects than the centralized government of the former country, and that the American expenditure must consequently be much smaller. If I contrast the budgets of the departments with those of the States which constitute the Union, it must be observed, that, as the States have the supervision of more numerous and important interests than the departments, their expenditure is naturally more considerable. As for the budgets of the counties, nothing of the kind occurs in the French system of finances; and it is doubtful whether the corresponding expenses in France should be referred to the budget of the state, or to those of the municipal divisions.

Municipal expenses exist in both countries, but they are not always analogous. In America, the townships discharge a variety of offices which are reserved in France to the departments, or to the state. It may, morcover, be asked what is to be understood by the municipal expenses of America. The organization of the municipal bodies or townships differs in the several States. Are we to be guided by what occurs in New England or in Georgia, in Pennsylvania or in Illinois ?

A kind of analogy may very readily be perceived between certain budgets in the two countries; but as the elements of which they are composed always differ more or less, no fair comparison can be instituted between them.

in fact useless to inquire what the Americans might do to forward this inquiry, since it is certain that they have hith erto done nothing. There does not exist a single individ ual at the present day, in America or in Europe, who can inform us what each citizen of the Union annually contributes to the public charges of the nation.*

Hence we must conclude, that it is no less difficult to compare the social expenditure, than it is to estimate the relative wealth, of France and America. I will even add, that it would be dangerous to attempt this comparison; for when statistics are not based upon computations which

* Even if we knew the exact pecuniary contributions of every French and American citizen to the coffers of the state, we should only come at a portion of the truth. Governments not only demand supplics of money, but call for personal services, which may be looked upon as equivalent to a given sum. When a state raises an army, besides the pay of the troops which is furnished by the entire nation, each soldier must give up his time, the value of which depends on the use he might make of it if he were not in the service. The same remark applies to the militia; the citizen who is in the militia devotes a certain portion of valuable time to the maintenance of the public security, and in reality surrenders to the state those earnings which he is prevented from gaining. Many other instances might be cited. The governments of France and America both levy taxes of this kind, which weigh upon the citizens; but who can estimate with accuracy their relative amount in the two countries ?

This, however, is not the last of the difficulties which prevent us from comparing the expenditure of the Union with that of France. The French government contracts certain obligations which are not assumed by the state in America, and vice versa. The French government pays the clergy; in America, the voluntary principle prevails. In America, there is a legal provision for the poor; in France, they are abandoned to the charity of the public. The French public officers are paid by a fixed salary; in America, they are allowed certain perquisites. In France, contributions in labor take place on very few roads, — in America, upon almost all the thoroughfares: in the former country, the roads are free to all travellers; in the latter, turapikes abound. All these differences in the manner in which taxes are levied in the two countries enhance the difficulty of comparing their expenditure; for there are certain expenses which the citizens would not be subject to, or which would at any rate be less considerable, if the state did not undertake to act in their name.