The Labor enquirer., 1884-07-05

use of capital" And then he tells US
what capital really is he says nothing
can be capital let it always be remem-
lbered- that is not wealth that is to say
nothing can be capital that does not con-
lsist of actual, tangible things-not the
spontaneous offerings of nature, which
have in themselves and not byProxY the
power of directly or indirectly minister
ing to human desire. Thus govern
Iment bond is not capital, nor yet is it a
Representative of capital. The capital
that was once received for it by the gov
eminent has been consumed unpro-
ductively- blown away from the mouths
E,of commerce. used up in war ships, ex-
fpended in keeping men marching and
drilling, killing and destroying. The
bond cannot represent4capital that has
been destroyed. 1t does not represent
capital at all. 1t is simply solemn
i declaration that the government will
some time or other take by taxation
from the then existing stock of the peo-
pie, so much wealth, which it will turn
over to the holders of the bonds. ~
The immense sums which are thus taken
from the produce of every modern coun-
try to pay interest on public debts are
not the earnings orFincrease of capital
are not really interestin the strict sense
of the term, but are taxes levied on the
produce OF labor and capital, leaving so
much less for wages and so much less for
real interest" y s-
Now | say in all candor, and at the
same time with degree of amazement,
what does this teach? In the first quo
tation he affirms the belief that interst
for capitalize can mean nothing else)
is not the robbery of industry, which it
is supposed to be. All through this cita-
ton he labors to prove that taxes are
not, in the strict sense of the term, in
terest, when they 60 to pay for the bonds
of a country, and as it were, to cap the
climax, he declares that a government
bond is not capital. Well, then, accord
ing to his own definition, a government
bond is not can actual, tangible thing"
and is in no sense "a representative of
capital" Now I ask, in the name of
common sense, what is it? wonder If
the following taken from ex-Secretary of
the Treasury Boutwell's report, and
sworn to, would convince him or anyone
else that the bonds are tangible" and
that they do represent" capital? The
ex-secretary, in his report. page 297, Off
cially states under oath, that there has
beeg destroyed as money, since 1861, and
previous to June 30, '72, S1,SOs,3l 1850,
and bonds issued therefor. This destruc-
ton of the peoples money was first tried
by maceration, but this process not prov
ing quick enough, fire was resorted TO
f and the remaining portion were burned,
and bonds issued therefor. Was this
a money tangible or not? Was this money
5 capital, or was this purely an imaginary,
4 intangible proceeding? l shall be met
here with the objection that this money
which was burned and bonds issued
t therefor, was a deprecated moneY-it
was in no wise good, sound money
r because it did not rest upon coin basis.
t | will answer this question by asking
! one. Did not this money meet all the
4 requirements of this nation in one of the
most important crises to which any
! nation can be subjected? When my OBJ
jeCtors can answer this in the negative,
= then will l be ready to say that the bonds
f issued upon the ashes of this money Of
the people is not a representative of
: capital" but as, Mr.. George clearly init
mates, an intangible" substance.
3 Now it is my turn to ask a question.
5 How does it come to pass that in paying
: taxes, which is really not interest, for
} these non Representatives of capital,
5 bonds, that there is so much less left OF
: the produce "for wages, and so much less
t for real interest % Is it possible for any
2 one. to pay taxes if they have not
t already earned the means to do so or, in
other words, if their labor has not been
t capitalized to the extent of paying the
f taxes? The government does not take
the raw material, such as wheat, corn,
cotton, wool, beef, tobacco or whisky, or
7 even silver or gold except in cases where
3 it can use these thing and turn them into
t something tangible-w 5alth if you please
3 whereby to pay the bonds with. The
: bondholders will not take any of these
8 things for the bonds, but their equivalent
/ in ''coin" Now, is it not manifest to
! everyone that in order to pay the inter
g est on these bonds it (the INTEREST," must
7 first be taken from what has already been
s produced, and second, the inevitable
I consequence is that the interest on these
y bonds has been taken from what labor
P and capital have already earned, and that
: this interest has robbed labor and capi
g tai of just so much of what they have
f already earned, and not from what they
!, have to earn in the future. Therefore,
r in every sense, this interest has robbed
: labor and capital of every cent paid for
e interest since its inception Is there or
: can there be any other solution than this ?
This is not the worst feature of the