Democratic Sentinel, Volume 18, Number 10, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 23 March 1894 — THE TAX ON INCOMES. [ARTICLE]

THE TAX ON INCOMES.

MANY REASONS ADVANCED IN ITS FAVOR. Fromlaent Men Expre** Themaelv** on TMi Important Sabjeet-rilnuj Objection* to Free Ore—Weak-kneed Demex*!* Protection Force* Inunlfratlon. Millionaire* Don’t Like It. Th© following are extract© from Uriel S. Hall’s article in the March Porum: The wealthy classes of the Eastern States, who are now opposing us in the enactment of this bill, are embarrassing the best friends of a peaceful government The principle that the wealth of this country should help to bear the burden of national taxation is too well settled by logic, by authority, and by experience, to justify extended argument now. Too often already have members of this Congress been warned that, whenever the richer class should be asked to share the burdens of government, they, prompted by avarice, would denounce the suggestion. It is their position, not that needs defense. In a recent speech in the House of Representatives, I said: “Were I called upon to frame a law that would keep down demagogy, that would take the last grain of justice from the conglomerate mass of Populistic heresies? it would be an incometax law.” I sincerely feel that every word I said was true. Under our tariff system its burdens are put upon consumption (the necessaries of life that the poor must have or perish), and a poor man with a wife and five children is forced to pay out of his ■mall income a larger sum for the support of the government than is the average man of great wealth and small family. All the greatest authorities on taxation say that the subjects of a nation should be taxed to support that nation according to their ability, not according to the section in which they live; recognizing that we should all be common bearers and common supporters of a common country, ignoring sectionalism. Senator John Sherman, in a speech delivered in the United States Senate March 15, 1882, uses the following language: “The public mind is not vet prepared to apply the key of a genuine revenue reform. A few years of further experience will convince the whole body of our people that a system of national taxes which rests the whole burden of taxes on consumption, and not one cent on property and income, is intrinsically unjust. While the expenses of the National Government are largely caused by the protection of property, it is but right to call property to contribute to its payment. It will not do to say that each person consumes in proportion to his means. That is not true. Every one must see that the consumption of the rich does not bear the same relation to the consumption of the poor as the income of the rich does to the of the poor. As wealth accumulates, this injustice in the fundamental basis of our system will be felt and forced upon the attention of Congress." Thorold Rogers says: “Taxation in proportion to benefits received is sufficiently near the truth for the practical operations of government.” Rousseau and the elder Mirabeau, J. B. Say and Garnier have approved of this system; while Sismondi. in laying down his canons of taxation, declares that “every tax should fall on revenue, not on capital,” and that “taxation should never touch what is necessary for the existence of the contributor." John Stuart Mill declares that “equality of taxation, as a maxim of politics, means equality of sacrifice.” If this income-tax bill is defeated, one will be passed in the near future that will be far wider reaching and involving far greater danger of injustice toward wealth.

Week-Kneed Democrat** The Reform Club of New York had a big tariff-reform meeting in Little Falls, N. Y., on Feb. 22. There was great opposition to the meeting. At 7:30 p. m. the opera-house had not been lighted, but few people had arrived, and the prospects for a successful meeting were not flattering. It was then that the leading Democrats, who had given but half-hearted support to the arrangements, began to decline the honor of acting as Chairman to introduce Mr. W. B. Estell, the speaker. Disgusted at the cowardice of the Democratic politicians, the Reform Club representative at last asked Mr. P. W. Castler, a manufacturer and farmer, but not a politician, if he would preside. He gladly consented to do so. Here is a part ot what he said: We all understand the object of this meeting. Not even the mostradlcal of our Republican friends claim that Democratic laws have caused any of the hard times through which we are passing. They only claim that it is the fear of what may happen should the Wilson bill become a law that has caused the stagnation In trade and the closing up of our millu In regard to what would be the consequence of the enactment of the Wilson bill, opinions differ, and we have with us to-night a gentleman who will explain most fully the Democratic position of this question, and show you by facts and figures that there can be no question but that the passage of proper tariff reform measures will not only restore our former prosperity, but greatly enhance It He will also show that the present depression Is due. not to Democratic measures or the fear of Democratic measures, but to the condition the country Was left In by the actual results of Republican laws and Republican mismanagement I know that there are many within these walls to-night who are sorry that they voted for Cleveland and a change in the national policy. But I want to tell them . that had the Republican party continued their extravagant rule and financial policy we would be suffering ten times as badly to-day as we are now. The condition of these weak-kneed Democrats is the same as was that ot many Republicans after the election ot Lincoln. They had voted for Lincoln and the abolition of slavery; but when they began to realize what a radical Change it would make in the secession ot the South and the utter prostration of the business interests of the country, they weakened and were sorry that they voted the right way, and many of the leaders In the Republican party, notably the leader of that party in this State, advocated abandoning the principles upon which Lincoln was elected and allowing slavery not only to continue •in the South, but to extend right through the States to California. I believe in the future when we look back to the time when we voted for tariff reform we will do so with as much satisfaction as those who voted for the abolition of slavery and fought and bled for that, cause. " 1 1 ' Flimsy Objections to Free Ore. There is no excuse whatever for the opposition to the free-listing of iron ore. The free admission of iron ore—exclusively for the relief of manufacturers on the northeastern seaboard who cannot bring ore from the shores of Lake Superior or the mines of Alabama—would injuriously affect no domestic producer of ore, but would stimulate the entire iron and steel industry. It is announced that Senator Morgan of Alabama “made a vigorous contest" in the caucus for a duty on Iron ore. And ypt we could quote here pages of effective arguments made in the Senate heretofore by this same Senator Morgan in favor of putting iron ore on the free list. He was right then, and he is wrong now. The free admission of ore would

not dcprts? the iron-ore industry in Alabama, where the cost of making iron is now lower than in any other part of the world, nor would it harm the iron-ore industry on the shores of Lake Superior, from which region ore of the first quality is now sold for t 2.75 per ton, delivered at Cleveland, Ohia Even this hitherto uiheard-of price will be reduced in the coming season, unless certain powerful capitalists shall succeed in controlling the output and price of ore from the marvelous deposits in the Mesaba district in the interest of the deep mines elsewhere. The obstructionists who oppose the free-listing of ore really have not a leg to stand on. Either they are obstructionists with a sinister or malicious purpose, or they are shamefully ignorant of the actual condition of the ironore industry.—New York Times. Protection Force* Immigratioa. Protection does not raise the standard of wages; the most that can be claimed for It is that it enables the manufacturer to pay the existing standard, and that if his protection was withdrawn his labor would engage in other pursuits in which they would receive better wages. It is an admitted fact that, with very few exceptions, the labor in the unprotected receives higher wages than in the protected avocations. I appeal to the wage-workers of the country to witness the fact that the accumulation of surplus labor in this country is constantly increasing and that the competition for work is growing more severe each year. The clamor for a strict enforcement of the laws of immigration as well as the demand for the enactment of more stringent ones attest the truth of this fact Nothing, in my judgment, has done so much to overstock our labor market as the enactment of prohibitory duties which exclude the people of other countries from obtaining our food products, and should we continue the same, nothing on earth can check the tide that is flowing in upon us. Our free lands all having been taken up, this immigration will drift into our cities to augment the ranks of the unemployed and increase the competition for work s well as the number to be supported by charity. I received, a few days ago a letter from a constituent in one of the protected industries protesting against the passage of this bill. It was gentlemanly in tone, and I think contained an honest expression of the writer’s opinions. He said, in substance: “I came to this country from England. I received only about the wages there as Ido here. About six years ago, in the factory in which I worked, twelve of our number were selected to meet the masters and request an increase of 10 per cent in wages. They told us they could not give it because the American tariff was in their way, but if we could get that removed they would increase our wages 20 per cent So I came to this country.” In this letter is an argument that is unanswerable. “The American tariff prohibited the products of my labor from coming to this country, so I came,” says this operative. And so others will come. Would not th© workingmen in this country be in a better condition with a moderate tariff and an increase of 10 or 20 per cent, in wages in England than they would be with a protective tariff and all the foreign labor in that country here by their side? It illustrates another point —that by excessive protection the wages in foreign countries, which consumes the surplus products of our farms, have been forced down, thereby reducing the demand for our agricultural supplier I asserted that protection had broken down our markets; have I not demonstrated the fact? It has done more; it has forced into this country an unnatural and in some degree an undesirable immigration, until the peace and good order of society in our great cities is imperiled. It has destroyed trade, deranged our finances, and paralyzed our business.—From Congressman Bynum’s speech in Congress.

For One Year. The Republican papers took occasion on the 4th of March to indulge in doleful reviews of the condition of the country consequent, as they allege, on one year of Democratic rule. The panic was the creation of the Democracy, according to their logic, but they fail to explain why it has Deen worldwide in its sweep. Democracy is a pretty big institution, but it hardly determines conditions in Great Britain France, Germany, Italy and creation generally. The Democratic party took power on March 4, 1893, pledged to three things, namely: 1. The repeal of the Sherman silver purchase law. 2 The repeal of the Federal election law. 3. The reform of the McKinley tariff. Within the year they have repealed the Sherman law, they have repealed the Federal election law, and have passed through the House, and have pending in the Senate, a comprehensive plan of tariff reform and revision. The chances are that it will be in operation on the date stipulated in the pending bill—that is, on the Ist of June. That is doing pretty well. The Democracy is willing ana proud to stand on its record. If the Republican papers are in a reminiscent mood they will find plenty of material for reflection in a comparison of the condition of the treasury and finance generally when Cleveland gave way to Harrison on the 4th of March, 1889, and the condition on the 4th of March, 1893, when Harrison gave way to Cleveland.— Pittsburg Post. The Income Tax. The Senate will bring itself much nearer to the people by a prompt majority for the income tax.—St Louis Post-Dispatch. The proposed assessment on incomes for raising revenue for the government would be a rich man's tax. The tariff is a poor man's tax.—Toledo News. The question has been raised as to how the imposition of an income tax will affect the conduct of impecunious foreigners seeking the hands and fortunes of American heiresses. This is a matter worthy of Congressional investigation.—Detroit Free Press. A fairly laid income tax is the most just tax that can be levied by the government. Who has a greater interest in the execution of laws for the protection of property than the rich man with a big income, and who is better able to pay for the protection he gets than such a man? —-Fort Collins Courier. The people are becoming very tired of seeing all the national revenues raised by taxes on consumption, so that an income of $1,000,000 a year pays its percentage only on what one man eats and drinks and wears, while a thousand incomes of SI,OOO each pay on all that a thousand families eat and drink and wear.—San Francisco Examiner. Shouldn’t Delay Its Passage. The Syracuse Courier (Dem.) states its belief that neither Senator Hill nor Senator Murphy will finally oppose the Wilson bill, but it adds: “An enemy of the Democratic party, its most bitter partisan opponent, could not select a time more opportune for doing it the greatest Injury, by delaying the passage of the Wiison till, than the present.” No pleasure is comparable to the standing upon the vantage ground of truth. —Bacon. x