-r vwr T$J''"TI(rTOilW rr -
-irtfrt " s
The Commoner.
JULY 16, 1909
3
r--' -w r w
branch of congress; but we all know how abso
lute the control of the ruling group is in the
house and that with the speaker's organization
and power things generally go through in the
form the leaders desire. A question has been
raised as to the constitutional right of the
senate to originato the resolution adopted yes
terday. The point is made that the matter
bears on the raising of revenue, and so falls
within the constitutional provision that all bills
for raising revenue shall originate in the house
of representatives. The point is not taken
seriously by the able constitutional lawyers, as
the resolution is clearly not a bill providing
for revenue, but the discussion of the subject
opens up the whole matter to analysis in all its
phases.
Something should bo said about the doubtful
states in parts of the country remote from New
England. California is more than doubtful in
the minds of several observers, because its legis
lature is generally understood to be dominated
by E. H. Harriman and his legal adviser, the
latter also being the political boss of the state.
It is taken for granted that the Harriman in
fluence will be exerted strongly against the pro
posed amendment wherever it exists at all. An
other far western state that is classed as very
doubtful is Utah. Senator Smoot has come to
be the right-hand man to Senator Aldrich; he
is a power in the Mormon church, and the Mor
mon church Is a power in Utah politics.
Alabama and Florida are reckoned as states
where there will be a hard fight, owing to the
New York capitalist influence which is becoming
stronger and stronger there through its interest
in investments. The same condition applies to
Louisiana, where, aside from possible outside
influences, the influence of Senator McEnery
and his followers would naturally be exerted.
Senator McEnery is assumed to be a possible
opponent of the amendment because he has so
consistently followed the big republican leader,
who directs the greatest deliberative body in the
world.
New York is regarded as doubtful for reasons
that are obvious. It is the state of greatest
Individual fortunes a state where wealth and
its particular interests Invariably must be reck
oned with in matters of legislation. Although
Senator Root has said he would vote for and
support the adoption of the proposed amend
ment in his state, he has made it just as plain
that he does not .regard it wise to exercise
the power which congress may have conferred
on it. He thinks the federal government should
have ample power to raise revenue in any
emergency, but he sees no emergency for this
form of taxation. There will not, therefore, be
the enthusiasm to Mr. Root's support of the
amendment that there would if he felt different
ly about the tax itself and there is question as
to whether the general antagonistic influence
will not outweigh such support when it comes to
the test.
It is expected the fight against the adoption
of the amendment will be concentrated in the
eastern states because of the changes which
make a powerful sentiment there naturally op
posed to income taxation. The most active ad
vocates of the proposed amendment think Sen
ator Root struck a chord that will be respon
sive outside his own state when he declared at
the time the corporation tax amendment to the
t tariff bill was under discussion that an income
tax wpuld be unjust because it would be con
spicuously a' tax upon the east for the benefit
of the west; in other words, he declared in
substance that the agitation for an income tax
is an attempt on the part of the west to make
the east pay the running expenses of the gov
ernment. Speaking generally, it is believed this argu
ment by Senator Root has not enhanced the
chances for the constitutional amendment any
where in the east, where there will be pressed
at the critical time also the further powerful
and correlative argument that there is no need
for this power to levy an inqome tax, because
there is no war and no probability of war, but
that if the amendment to the constitution suc
ceeds of adoption a law to tax incomes will al
most inevitably follow at once. A second con
sideration that is believed to have a powerful
effect in the east is a belief which will be cul
tivated that the specifically granted power to
legislate for an income tax will be the opening
wedge to the destruction of the protective tariff
system in the -United States. This argument or
belief will . appeal to states like Pennsylvania
and those in the New England group in .fact,
fell Btates which are thoroughly committed to
ultra-protection. t
Hero you have the reasons which show the
probability of concentrating the fight against
the adoption of the amendmont In the cast.
The third feature of opposition of a general
character that commands attention is the fact
that there always will be a strong and Influen
tial force in politics against an income tax on
any ground.
Getting around to the other side of the fight
it is pointed out that while the antagonists of
an income tax have unlimited wealth at thoir
command there is nobody to furnish funds and
make a battle for the tax with the enemy's
effective weapons. It will bo a people's cause,
but without, in all probability, organization or
unity of action in many states where the vote
will bo of vital importance.
THE INCOME TAX AMENDMENT
So great is the inherent conservatism of Amer
ican democracy that it has been forty years
since an amendment to the federal constitution
was submitted to the states for ratification.
Yesterday the United States senate, in carry
ing out the recommendation in Mr. Taft's special
message of June 16, adopted by a unanimous
vote the resolution providing for an amendment
that will specifically empower congress to levy
and collect an income tax as part of the revenue
system of the national government. The reso
lution will now go to the house, where there
is little doubt that the necessary two-thirds vote
can be obtained to pass it.
When this is done tho secretary of state will
formally transmit the amendment to the legis
latures of tho several states, three-fourths of
which must ratify It in order to make it opera
tive. The senate rejected Senator Bailey's
amendment to submit the amendment to state
conventions instead of legislatures. " As there
are forty-six states In the union, the consent of
thirty-five legislatures will bo necessary beforo
the amendment can become a part of tho funda
mental law of the land.
Having consistently advocated a federal tax
on large incomes for the last twenty-six years,
the World Is gratified at any step that may be
taken to bring this just measure of taxation
neaTer to a practical realization. At the same
time the senate resolution sheds a curious light
upon the political disorganization of both
parties.
So far as tho income tax was an issue in tho
presidential campaign, it was tho democrats who
advocated the uncertain processes of ai consti
tutional amendment and the republicans who
maintained that a valid law could bo enacted in
spite of the decision of tho United States su
preme court.
Tho democratic national platform declared
that
"We favor an income tax as part of our rev
enue system, and we urge the submission of a
constitutional amendment specifically authoriz
ing congress to levy and collect tax upon indi
vidual a,nd corporate incomes, to the end that
wealth may bear Its proportionate share of the
burdens of the fe'deral government."
Mr. Taft criticised this plank and insisted
that "In my judgment an amendment to the
constitution for an income tax is not necessary."
When there was grave danger, however, that
the senate might adopt Mr. Taft's views, the
republican leaders, with Mr. Taft at their head,
made the democratic constitutional, amendment
their own policy so far as a tax on individual
incomes was concerned. Then they accepted Mr.
Taft's theory, of the constitutionality of a tax
on corporate incomes, provided it was called an
excise tax.
We doubt if the history of American politics
shows a more bewildering compromise than that
carried through the senate, with Mr. Taft's as
sistance, by Mr. Aldrich, who is uncompromis
ingly opposed to any kind of an income tax and
accepted' the corporation tax only as a choico
of evils. Certainly there is no more extraordi
nary example of what Fernando Wood used to
call "pandering to.jthe moral sentiment of tho
community." New York World.
governor johnson and the tonnage
tax'.
Duluth, Minn., June 28, 1909. Editor The
Commoner: A few words as to tonnage tax bill
in Minnesota and the attitude of Minnesota dem
ocrats toward it. You say: "The Commoner
will not enter upon a consideration of tho merits
of the bill, but will be pleased to give space to
Minnesota democrats who desire to discuss it."
The form of the bill is unimportant but the
principle of taxation embodied in it is. The.
question is one of method of taxation and the
manner of distribution of tho rovonuo derived
from taxation. Tho tonnago tax principle Is a
radical departure from tho principle of tho taxa
tion of realty according to valuo. It is a spe
cific tax, arbitrarily, one might almost say
tyrannically, levied. I think it Is a democratic
as well as a republican principle that all prop
erty subject to taxation should bo taxed abso
lutely equally. -This can only bo done when
all property subject to taxation is taxed accord
ing to its value. If property is over-valued for
taxation its owner can go Into court and show
that fact. If it is under-valued the stato can in
court show that fact. Relief can bo had. But
if wheat, potatoes, coal and, iron ore are to bo
taxed by the ton and tho rate por ton is to
bo fixed arbitrarily by tho legislature then
there can bo no roliof on tho part of tho prop
erty owner and equality of taxation will bo an
"Iridescent dream." Our stato legislature will
bo miniature senates with Aldrlches In tho sad
dle. The potato members will want a low rate
on potatoes but will not care so much how high
tho rate Is to be on wheat and Iron and coal.
Tho wheat meinbors, tho Iron members and the
coal mombers will feel in tho same way except
that they will want a low rate on their partic
ular article Thus will our legislatures become,
schools of graft, inequality and special prlvl-'
logo such as never heretofore dreamed of. Such
a method of taxation may bo JuBt and demo
cratic, but I have never so considered It and
I do not think you have. I must not take much
space and so can only touch on one or two
things. I am opposed to the tonnago tax be
cause, as I look at It, It Is undemocratic, arbi
trary and tyrannical. Also because that system
of taxation almost necessarily leads to corrup
tion, graft, special privllego and sectional strife
and ill feeling.
But then there is tho question of tho dis
tribution of the tax collected. Perhaps tho best
way to open up this phase of tho question is to
Stato a part of that precious plank, quoted In
Tho Commoner, which was sneaked into the
last democratic stato platform. In commending
tho adoption of a certain amendmont to the
state constitution at tho election (an amend
ment, by tho way, that was beaten by tho people
at tho polls) it pathetically says: "That this
amendment will open tho way for the passage
of a tonnage lax on iron ore." Now that state
ment is not true. Sinco November 3, 1896, a
tonnago tax upon iron ore has been authorized
by tho stato constitution. (Par. 17 of Art. 10.)
But that authorization was not satisfactory to
some because it also provides, "but tho pro
ceeds of such taxes upon mining property shay
bo distributed between the state and the va
rious political sub-divisions thereof wherein the
same Is situated, in the same proportion as the
proceeds of taxes upon real property are dis
tributed." The milk In tho cocoanut of the
proposed amendment to tho constitution voted
down in 1908, and also the one voted down in
1906 but fraudulently declared carried and
afterwards sustained as adopted by the supremo
court upon a technicality when every man,
woman and child in tho stato knows it wai
voted down, Is tho doing away with this pro
vision of the constitution which requiretl a ton
nago tax to ho distributed between tho state,
the county, tho town, the school district, etc.,
where the mine is situated, "In the same pro
portion as tho proceeds of taxes upon real prop
erty aTe distributed." That clause which re
quired this tax to bo equally distributed be
tween stato, county, school district, etc., the
same as taxes collected from other property,
was the offending member of our constitution
which must be cut off. The desire Is to have all
of this tonnage tax go to tho state. None to
county or school districts. Is there any reason
that can bo suggested why taxes collected from
property situated in St. Louis, or Itaska, or
Aitkin, or Crow Wing or Becker county should
bo distributed differently from taxes collected
from property situated in Rock, or Pipestone,
or Ramsey county? Here is where discrimina
tion and sectionalism creeps in. It does not
seem democratic to me that this discrimination
should exist. Does it to you? Now as to the
question of the plank of the platform. I am
generally in accord with yon upon that question.
If I were a democrat in office I should feel
bound by the Denver platform. It was consid
ered and adopted amid scenes of greatest pub
licity. It is impossible that anything could have
been put into it without consideration. But
that this plank in the democratic state platform
was speaked into it is so apparent and manifest
that no, one can doubt. There were forty; or
fifty delegates in the convention .that adopted
that platform from St. Eouis county who would