t
2
Jilrn skillful lawyers to present technicalities
In hiH doroimo. If, liowovor, ho steals a largo
Hum, II become quite a different matter, and
the mini may be ho large that wo overlook tho
man's rascality In our amazement at the genius
which he haH displayed. Ab a rule, Hip man
. ' . . .1111 l..U.... 1..,., r, linilnr f'h'llW'n
WHO HHWUH a million (KJiniin nm k. i-- -
of cwiiiic than the man who steals a thousand.
Ho (rue Is this that It has been suggested that
wo amend the commandment to read "Thou
shalt not sleal upon a small scale." Judge .lore
... . .. . . . . t. i i- 1... ....!. In
Sliail HOI. HI Pill IIJJOII H BIIIUII Bi;tU.:. .inwtt -
IJlaek, the celebrated Pennsylvania lawyer, In
his argument In tho Credit Mobiller case quoted
ii man of affairs as saying (hat to rob an Indi
vidual was criminal, to rob a corporation was
reprehensible, to rob a municipality was a mat
tor of doubtful morality, to rob a state was
meritorious but to rob the United States was
tho hlghoHt achievement of human virtue. Wo
should attempt to cultivate a public opinion
which will remove th distinclion between grand
larceny and glorious larceny and insure tho
enforcement of the criminal law against all
offenders alike, regardless of Iho amount stolen
and regardless of the social, business or political
position of the thief.
Hut my object tonight is rather to draw
your attention to the various ways in which
larceny may be committed. There is a distinc
tion thai can be drawn between direct and 'in
direct larceny; .that Is, between tho one who
does the stealing himself and the one who does
It through another, and this is a larger subject
than at ilrst appears, for those who produce con
ditions which result in such gross injustice that
tho victims of tho injustice are driven to destl
tltioji, to despair, to desperation and finally to
'theft thoso who produce these conditions are
not entirely guiltless. But tho discussion of
this subject would lead us Into sociology, and I
want to confine myself to criminology. '
' For tho purposes of this discussion let us
divldo larceny into two classes larceny in viola
tion of tho law and larceny through tho opera
tion of law. While both branches of the subject
aro important, tho second branch is the larger
and tho less considered. 1 think 1 am within
tho truth when 1 say that measured by tho
valuo o tho property takon, stealing through
tho operation of law, if not so frequent, reaches
a larger aggregato than stealing in violation of
tho law. But tho stealing which is done in
violation of law is enormous and the methods
employed many. Take for illustration q ad
ministration of our tax laws. Let us supposo
that tho law is made by well-meaning legisla
tors and in its requirements approaches justice
as closely as infallible man can approach justice.
Iho assessor is sometimes corrupted not always
by money but more often by Influence. That
Is, tho person favored does not alweys pay the
assessor a fixed sum but helps to elect him or
re-elect him and thus becomes responsible for
tho continuation of his salary.
Inequality in taxation is merely a form
of larceny. If two men live side by
Bldo ami ono contributes In taxation ten dollars
whon his just share is only llvo dollars and the
other only pays five when ho ought to pay ten
0IJSi l0;lS flvo (lollftrs lmit h ought to keen
. toSvio0!!10' keopB flvo (iollars uit h "Sh
to givo to tho government. The effect in this
case is just tho same as if ono man took o
I o'u1 l fttCtf that tho-government, acting as
a collector, took tho live dollars from the man
who is overburdened and gave it to the a
who is undorburdoned does not change the char'
ncter of tho transaction. b ai
If inequality in taxation is duo to the act
of an assessor who, at tho solicitation of Z
property owner under-asscsses him then the
assessor and tho man favored are guilty of t lo
wrongful taking of the property c "another
If wo examine the assessment books n any cRv
wo will flnd many instances such n Vw i '
there is this difference in the u-isis of J1101"0
rnont. the discrimination is suallf in favf
tho large proporty holder who is iiii J
an influence upon the a sessor o b as him Tn
favor of an under-valuation. hlm iu
fworoS'-Tlh lB th0 lnrg0 buslncss Wock often
fcuoied at the exponso of tho small homo S
the property of big corporations is (ten favored
at tho oxnenso nf twiii,i..ni i., , l uuoreu
in the value of tho franchise, and tht intnnX
asset is sometimes as valuable as the Ma!
The Commoner
properties owned by tho corporation. Taxes
are generally estimated on the basis of physical
proporty while the dividends are1 paid upon
the face value of the stocks and bonds. It
scorns strange that a corporation which receives
a valuable franchise from the public as a gift
should refuse to pay taxes in proportion to the
market value of its stocks and bonds, nid yet,
there is scarcely a city or state in which the
public is not in a constant struggle to compel
franchise-holding corporations to pay their share
of the taxes, and even then the basis upon which
they pay is notoriously lower than the basis
upon which the individual property owner,
especially tho small property owner pays.
If a certain sum is to be collected in taxes
and some pay less than they should, the others
must pay more than thoir share. Is it not worth
while to insist that both the under-assessed
citizen and the unscrupulous official shall obey
the commandment "Thou shalt not steal?"
I need not waste time on the tax dodger or
the smuggler, for thoso who, by concealment,
deliberately deceive the assessor or collector are
as guilty of larceny as if they boldly took the
property of others.
But what if the fault is in the law itself?
What shall we say if thoso who make the
law write it with the intention of overburdening
some and releasing others from just obligations?
Time does not permit an extended discussion
of the various systems of taxation. If we were
discussing tho question of taxation in a funda
mental way, we would have to consider the
claims of all systems, existing and proposed,
but I am not now considering new sye
toms but rather the injustice connect
ed with tho systems in operation. In local taxa
tion we are constantly confronted with the ques
tion "Shall personal property be taxed?" and
there aro many who argue that because per
sonal property is difficult to locate, it should
bo exempt. This argument is based upon
the theory that it is better not to attempt to
collect a tax upon personal property than to
make an unsuccessful attempt. While I recog
nize that it is easier to collect taxes on visible
than on invisible property, I am convinced
that the owners of visible property should not
pay their own taxes and in addition thereto the
taxes that ought to be paid by tho owners of
invisible property. The farmer, for ihstance,
has his money invested in lands, in improve
ments and in, stock. All of these can be found
and their value estimated. If in the cities there
are people of great wealth who, instead of own
ing lands and buildings and cattle and hogs,
own money, and notes and bonds, is It fair that
the owners of money and securities shall be
exempt from taxation? The man who loans
usually requires security not only security but
a margin to cover possible shrinkage in the value
of the property upon which the security rests;
that is, tho man who owes him must suffer a
considerable loss before the creditor suffers any.
Is it fair that the man who thus must take
his chances upon the seasons and run tho risks
of business should also pay the taxes of the
ono who is able to protect himself from ordinary
risks and chances? If the law is made by those
who escape taxation, are they not taking the
property of others in violation of morals even
when they act in accordance with the laws which
they have secured?
The government is a mighty power for good
or for evil, for justice or for injustice, and when
the government itself can be manipulated for
the enforcement of a law which rests upon
injustice, great harm can be done. Is it stretch
ing tho definition of larceny to make it cover
tho wrongful taking of a man's property through
unjust legislation? I might hesitate to use such
strong language were it not for the fact that
the Supreme Court of tho United States has
used just such language in what is known as
the Topeka Kansas case. Justice Miller, in
delivering the opinion of the court, said "To
lay with one hand the power of the government
on the property of the citizen and with the other
to bestow it upon favored individuals to aid
private enterprises and build up private fortunes
is none the less a robbery because it is donl
under the forms of law and is called taxation "
"Robbery" is even a stronger word than
larceny but I am so conservative in my lan
guage that I prefer to use the nW polite
of s vivre tUe harsher terms t0 "S
In national taxation we have not made aq
near an approach to justice as we haVeto state
and municipal taxation. In national taxation
we collect almost all of our revenues forth!
support of the federal governmenlfom internal
revenue taxes and from import dutie. Theso
VOLUME 8, NUMBER 4
taxes rest upon consumption and are collected
in proportion to consumption. Wo tax peoplo
according to their needs rather than according
to their possessions, and men's needs are more
uniform than their possessions. Men do not
use tobacco, consume liquor, buy food or war
clothing in proportion to their wealth or in
proportion to their income, and taxes upon con
sumption always overburden the poor and undi-r-burden
the rich. When . the income tax was
under discussion, it was insisted that it collected
a tribute from thrift and industry, but are not
all taxes income taxes? They must be paid out
of tho income even though they are not pro
portioned to the income. Taxes upon consump
tion are therefore income taxes; they are more
than that, they are graduated taxes upon in
come and the heaviest per cent, falls upon tho
lowest income. Adam Smith has laid it down as
a rule that people ought to pay taxes in propor
tion to the benefits which they receive from their
government, and those who look to the govern
ment for' the protection of large possessions
ought to be willing to pay in proportion to the
protection which they receive. Our police of
ficers, our fire departments, our courts and our
armies and navies are supported more for the
protection of property than for the protection
of life, and it is only fair that taxation should
as far as possible take into consideration tho
benefits given in return.
I am aware that it is not possible to devise
any system of taxation which will be perfectly
fair and absolutely equitable, but I am afraid
that we have not always made justice and fair
ness the first consideration. The income tax
has been opposed by men who would have their
taxes increased and by men whose taxes ought
to be increased, and I have had a suspicion that
our import duties have in some cases been levied
for the purpose of giving some industries an
advantage over other industries to give a few
of the people a profit at the expense of the rest
of the people. The reason why unjust taxation
continues is that those who receive in largo
quantities exert an undue influence upon legis
lators while those who pay each a small amount
are too often indifferent to the exactions.
The contest between the taxpayer on the
one side and the tax eater on the other is al
ways an unequal contest heqause the tax eater
is vigilant and ever present while the tux payer
is at home trying to make enough to meet the
next assessment. For this reason appropriations
grow apace and unjust systems of taxation find
eloquent defense from orators and newspapers.
If I were to attempt to enter into detail, I
might run counter to the preconceived notions
of many in this audience, but I venture to call
your attention to the subject in the hope
that as conscientious men and women you
will study the question of taxation with
the determination to eliminate the element of
larceny wherever it appears and put taxa
tion upon a just foundation so that each
citizen will contribute his fair share to tho
burdens of the government under whose pro
tection we all live.
And now if you will bear with me a moment
I will take up another subject which illustrates
how larceny can be practiced by law. A change
in the monetary standard of a country affords an
opportunity for the wrongful taking of property.
A few years ago the debtor class in this country
was complaining because of a rising dollar.
During the last few years the creditor class
has been complaining of a falling dollar; that
is, from 1873 to 1897 the general level of
prices fell, and, roughly speaking, a dollar would
buy more and more each year. From 1897 up
to a few months ago prices have been rising
and a dollar would buy less and less each year.
Now there can be no doubt that falling prices
help the man who owns the dollars while rising
prices help the man who owes dollars. I
do not know that It is necessary to elaborate
upon this, because the quantitive theory of
money is now generally accepted, and the quan
SJ ?Tl 0f m0xney ls stated in the proposi
T.?iJ?ai f F factors remainng the same, the
S w Pier of a dollar decreases as the
number of dollars increases, or to state it in
a different way, prices rise when the volume
nl ??QY ,increases- When the general level
?n R w GS Jlfalls' a11 business is adjusted
tw ?! Sm? thl!!gs more slowly tlian others.
ZL!2 CGrtain fixed chai'Ses, such as the ex
5?i?pV?v to g0Xernment' which do not respond
?ni w n a Clia?g e in the level of Prices. Take
irDp tan dtB. railroad rates and official
P L!hen P1lices were fallinS the dollars
chilSL LhY a DOt,e or bond creased in pur
dofin?S K ,a?A thG one wh0 collected the
in V?11?? tGd ,this Increase, his principal ris
ing in fact though not in figures. The interest
H Vi te w ,fl'-u