'. ly
tr-r-
The Commoner.
VOLUME 10, NUMBER 4
vr -r 'HJfi' 0K
nr.
k
&
r4
i A
the taxes that ought to bo palcf by tho owners
of invisible property. Tho farmer, for instance,
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,
thero are people of great wealth who, instead of
owning lands and buildings and cattle and hogs,
own money, and notes and bonds, is it fair that
tho owners of money and securities shall bo
exempt from taxation? The man who loans
usually requires security not only security but
a margin to cover possible shrinkage in tho
value of the property upon which tho security
rests; that is, tho man who owes him must
suffer a considerable loss before the creditor
suffers any. Is it fair that tho man who thus
must take his chances upon the seasons and
run the risks of business should also pay tho
taxcs.of tho ono who is able to protect himself
from ordinary risks and chances? If the law
Is made by thoso who escape taxation, are they
not taking tho property of others in violation
of morals even when they act in accordanco
with tho laws which they have secured?
The government is a mighty power for good
or for evil, for justice or for injustice, and when
tho government itself can bo manipulated for
the enforcement of a law which rests upon
Injustice, great harm can be done. Is it stretch
ing the definition of larceny to make it cover
the wrongful taking of a man's property through -unjust
legislation? I might hesitate to use such
strong language were it not for tho fact that
the supreme court of the United States has
used just such language in what is known as
tho Topeka, Kansas, case. Justice Miller, in
delivering the opinion of tho court, said: "To
lay with ono hand tho power of the government
on tho property of tho citizen and with the other
to bestow it upon favored Individuals to aid
private enterprises and build up private for
tunes is none the less a' robbery because it is
done 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 more polite
phrase and leave tho harsher terras to our
court of last resort.
In national taxation we have not made as
near an approach to justice as we have in state
and municipal taxation. In national taxtion
wo collect almost all of our revenues for tho
support of the federal government from internal
revenuo taxes and from import duties. These
taxes rest upon consumption and are collected
In proportion to consumption. Wo tax people
according to their needs rather than according
to their possessions, and men's needs aro more
uniform than their possessions. Men do not
use tobacco, consume liquor, buy food or wear
clothing in proportion to their wealth or in
proportion to their income, and taxes upon con
sumption always overburden the poor and under
burden the rich. When the income tax was
under discussion, it was insisted that it collected
a tribute from thrift and industry, but aro not
all taxes income taxes? They must be paid out
of the 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 the
lowest income. Adam Smith has laid it down
as a rule that people ought to pay taxes in pro
portion to the benefits which they receive from
their government, and those who look to tho
government for the protection of large posses
sions ought to be willing to pay in proportion
to tho protection which they receive. Our police
offices, 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 Bystem of taxation which will bo perfectly
fair and absolutely equitable, but I am afraid
tfiat we have not always made justice and fair
ness tho first considertion. The income tax has
been opposed by mon who would have their
raxes increased and by men whose taxes ought
to be increased, and I have had a suspicion that
aur Import duties have in some cases been
levied for the purpose of giving somo industries
Jin advantage over other industries to give
&' 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
"large quantities exert an undue Influence upon
legislators while those who pay each a small
amount aro too often indifferent to the exactions.
The contest between the taxpayer on the ono
side and the tax eater on the other Is always
an unequal contest because the tax eater is
vigilant and ever present while the tax 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, 1
might run counter to tho pre-conceived 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 taxation upon a just founda
tion so that each citizen will contribute his
fair share to the burdens of the government
under whose protection wo 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 prop
erty. A few years ago the debtor class in this
country was complaining because of a rising
dollar. During the last few years tho 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 quantitative theory of money is now
generally accepted, and the quantitative theory
of money is stated in the proposition that, other
factors remaining the same, the purchasing
power of a dollar decreases as the number of
dollars increases, or to state it in a different
way, prices rise when the volume of money in
creases. When the general level of prices rises
or falls, all business is adjusted to it but some
things more slowly than others. There aTe cer
tain fixed charges, such as the expenses of gov
ernment, which do not respond quickly to a
change in the level of prices.- Take, for in
stance, debts, railroad rates and official salaries.
When prices were falling the dollars called for
by a note or bond increased in purchasing power,
and the one who collected the dollars, collected
this increase, his principal rising in fact though
not in figures. The interest itself increased,
for while the rate remained the same, the pur
chasing power of the annual interest grew. And
so also, with railroad rates. A fixed rate per
ton or a passenger rate of three cents per mile
became more and more to the railroad and cost
more and more to the shipper or traveler. In
like manner official salaries though not in
creased in amount, became heavier upon those
who, through taxation, paid the salaries. Since
prices have been rising and the reverse has been
true, and the fixed charges in the way of debt,
interest, rates and salaries have been more easily
paid. If a 'change in the volume of the money
is made deliberately and intentionally, those
who make it are morally responsible for the in
justice done, and they must be prepared to show
that, all things considered, the change secures
a larger measure of justice, or a nearer approxi
mation to justice.
I have not mentioned the subject for tho
purpose of criticising those who have endeavored
to enlarge the volume of currency or those who
have endeavored to contract it; I have referred
to the matter merely to show that, through
monetary legislation, it is possible to take money
from ono man and give it to another, and it
follows that unless this legislation is based upon
sound arguments and the laws made in the in
terests of justice, the taking may not only be
wrongful but tho injury very great.
The ideal monetary system would bo one In
which tho purchasing power of the dollar re
mained tho same yesterday, today and forever.
Then business could be done upon a level piano
and no one would secure that legislative advan
tage which, whether it be great or small, is
necessarily attendant upon a change in tho aver
age purqhasing power of the dollar. In 1896 bl
motallists contended that an enlargement of the
volume of tho currency was necessary to protect
society from the effect of falling prices, an effect
recognized by all civilized countries in the va
rious international conferences that were held.
It was admitted that in the restoration of bi
metallism there would be instances of individual
injustice, but it was contended that the restora
tion of a just level of. prices would, on tho whole,
promote justice. Those who at that time de
fended falling prices and complained of bimet
allism are today using the arguments of bimet
allista and pointing out the fact that the dollar
which rises in value, liko a "dollar which falls
In value, brings injustice to some.
Surely in the consideration of so great a sub
ject as that of money care should be exercised
to reduce to the minimum the injustice done
and to increase to the maximum the stability
of tho dollar as a measure of the value of all
other property.
The subject of private monopoly furnishes
us another illustration of larceny, and here it
is not petit larceny nor even grand larceny; it
rises to the proportions of a glorious larceny
not only because of the amount taken, but be
cause of the respectability of those who re
ceived the stolen goods. The object of a private
monopoly is to control the price of the thing
sold. It is to corner tho market. The theory
is that man's necessities require him to buy
certain things which sustain his life and add to
his comfort. Where there is competition tho
sellers bid against each other and the purchaser
is ablo to secure what he needs at a price which
is approximately fair. If, however, all of the
vendors can be brought together in a combina
tion so that all purchasers must buy of the same
vendor, competition is eliminated and the man
who fixes the price, fixes it arbitrarily, and we
know enough of Truman nature to know that
he is apt to charge all that the traffic will bear.
To illustrate this point, let us suppose a city in
the midst of a desert whose people derive their
water supply from, a single spring. All must
have water, and they must have it, no matter at
what cost. If the one spring to which all must
go is owned by an individual and ho is permit
ted to charge what he will for water, he is
sure to prosper as long as there is any money
in the city. This is an imaginary case. It can
not be real because the instinct of self-preservation
is so strong that people would not permit
the water supply of a city to be in the hands
of one man with no regulation as to the price
to be charged. In the cities which permit pri
vate corporations to control the water plants
there is always provision for regulation of the
price. I need only present the case of a real
monopoly to show how intolerable it is. A
monopoly is as abhorrent to the public as a
vacuum is to nature, and yot, we have allowed
monopolies to grow up in this country which
do far more injustice and reap a larger profit
from the injustice than the owner of the spring
would in the supposed city in the desert, and
these monopolies are tolerated only because tho
people are less informed about their methods
and their influence.
I insist that the commandment "Thou shalt
not steal" applies as much to the monopolist
as to the highwayman, and we shall not make
any national progress in the protection of the
people from private monopolies until we are
prepared to obliterate the line that society has
drawn between the ordinary thief and the larger
criminal who holds up society and plunders the
public through the instrumentality of private
monopoly. The man who stands by the wayside
and, holding a revolver to your head, demands
your money or your life is no .more a criminal
measured by every moral standard than tho
man. who, obtaining control of a nation's fuel,
collects a tribute from every householder, offer
ing him the alternative of payment or suffering
from lack of fire. I have mentioned a monopoly
in fuel, but a monopoly in light, in food or in
any other necessary of life is just as repugnant
to the moral sense. It is entirely possible that
very many of those who enjoy the benefits of
monopoly some as managers, some as directors
and some merely as stockholders are uncon
scious of the principle involved unconscious of
the moral character of their conduct, but surely
this is an opportune time to impress upon the
conscience of the nation the real moral charac
ter of the conduct of the monopolist.
And it is not sufficient that we shall appeal
to the conscience of the monopolist alone. If a
highwayman were to engage a lawyer to follow
a few rods behind him with a horse that ho
might have a ready means of escape after having
committed an act of robbery, we would call tho
lawyer a party to the crime and we would visit
upon him the same punishment visited upon the
principal in the robbery; and so if someone liv
ing near the spot where the robbery was com
mitted furnished tho robber with a change of
clothing or in return for a part of the booty
conspired with him to conceal the booty until
suspicion was past, such a ono could not escape
legal responsibility for the crime, nnd yet it ia
1Y
JK
Hi,
Vdr&U., wtfc-Mfch.i'BtiK'ij