The examiner., 1886-07-10
A POLITICAL ESSAY.
I'm FAVOR OF THE PROGREssfvE
PARTY.
CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK.

come Senator from Pennsylvania. w oult
he stand any chance of being elected
against some millionaire who would go tx
Harriburg, and scatter his money ant
promises among the pure and incorruptibl'
members of the Legislature If, however
the election of Mr. Powderly depended
upon the direct vote of the people, ht
would stand fair chance of being elected
in opposition to the richest man in in the
State. We use Mr.. Powderly's name with
out his consent or knowledge, merely tt
illustrate our argument. There are many
\ intelligent honorable men in the State whe
would ike to be Senators, and who woulf
faithfully discharge the duties of the office
but they know they have no chance 81
being elected by modern Legislatures
against some tricky politician with a well
filed pocket book.
The United States Senate has frequently
been called club of milhonaires. Some
few Senators from the South are compare
lively poor. Nearly all of the Western
and Northern Senators are rich, some OF
them exceedingly rich. They own rail
roads, manufactures, many houses ano
vast tracts of land All their sympathies
are with capitalists like themselves, and
rich corporations. Some of them have act
ually bought their seats in the Senate, 6
mere business speculation, with the idea OF
increasing still more their immense posses
sions. What can poor men and wage.
workers hope for from such a Senate
Can we expect better Senators as long as
we permit our Legislatures to elect them
We are told by Jesus to judge of the tree
by it's fruit. The fruit in this case seems
to be rotten and poisonous.
The talented editor of the Louisville
Journal says that the late civil war cost
this country 81 900, 900, 900. According tc
careful circulation it should not have cost
IL. d I'LL
soldiers endured all the hardships and dan
gers of war, and thousands of them died
miserably on battle-felds and in hospitals,
greedy selfish capitalists took advantage of
the general confusion, and accumulated
great fortunes for themselves. According
to the above figures, these filthy creatures
swindled their country and fellowmen out
of So, 100000, 900. After the war was over,
by means of this immense wealth, which to
all intents and purposes they stole from
their fellowmen they have exerted an un-
due and maign influence over the govern
ment. They have especially got the
United States Senate under their control,
as long as they are permitted to elect Sen
ators to suit themselves, by the agencies of
corrupt Legislatures.
These then are our reasons for thinking
that the United States Senators should be
elected directly by us, the people of the
.
exceedingly important political duty, and
on general principles should be performed
by us the rulers of the land, and not en-
trusted to agents of any kind. Experience
has shown that the members of the Legis-
lature are exposed to great temptation, and
are apt to be bribed and corrupted by rich
candidates Men who are not acceptable
to us are often elected Senators, and other
men who are acceptable stand little or no
oh Of +aG R1y tbo
plan of electing Senators, rich men and
powerful corporations can easily send and
do send to the United States Senate men
who are merely their own agents and in
struments.
We will now advance few arguments
in favor of the first two resolutions of our
platform. Every person shall be allowed
to own one thousand dollars worth of
property exempt from taxation of any
kind, and articles of necessity shall be
taxed, either directly or Indirectly, by the
United States or by any State. The abject
of these two resolutions is to transfer all
the expenses of government from the
shoulders of the poor to those of the rich
and luxurious 1t is an admitted principle
of political economy that the luxuries,
rather than the necessaries of life should be
taxed. Now wealth is the representative
of luxuries of all kinds. Hence all luxur-
les are taxed when wealth itself is taxed.
Property to the amount of one thousand
dollars represents the necessaries of life,
and, therefore, should not be taxed at all.
Property, in excess to one thousand dollars,
represents the comforts and luxuries of
life, and hence may very properly be
taxed. This idea corresponds with DR..
Wayland's conclusions. His thoughts are
well worthy of our attention. He is
probably the clearest and most logical
reasoner America has ever produced. He
says property below certain amount
might very properly be exempt from tax
alton "The poor mans clothes and bed
ding, his cow and his pig, should never be
enumerated among taxable articles. P"
When we consider the great wealth and
almost boundless resources of this country,
we can safely permit every man to own
one thousand dollars worth of property ex-
empt from taxation of every sort, kind and
description. AT all events, in favor
of giving this idea fair, honest and prac-
tical trial.
Taxes should be collected in such man
neP as to cause the least distress and in
convenience to our citizens. This seems to
be a self-eyident proposition. Our plan
would produce no distress whatever and
but little inconvenience. 1t would not be
in the least burdensome to very poor men,
who constitute the bulk of our citizens, for
they would have no tax whatever to pay.
It would not be any more burdensome to
persons of moderate fortunes than our
present mode of taxation A man has five
thousand dollars worth of property. Now,
he paws tax on the whole of it. By our
plan he would have one thousand dollars
worth exempt from taxation. The in
creased rate of taxation on the remaining
four Thousand dollars would probably make
his taxes amount to what they are at pres
ent Our plan of taxation would increase
the taxes of the rich man, but that is a
matter of very trivial Importance. Even
though a rich mans taxes should be very
heavy, he could easily pay them without
distressing himself or family Let us illus
trate this point by examples. Suppose a
very rich man has an income of 500, 900.
Let us imagine his taxes are extremely
heavy, say $50,000 He would still have
$4,000 year to live upon. Would he be
an object of pity Would he or his family
be plunged into any real distress on account
of his high tax I? Would they suffer for
any of the necessaries of life? Would his
wife have to do without shoes, and would
his children cry in vain for bread? Let us
now imagine that quite rich man has an
income Of $4,000, and that his tax is
50, 900 year. He would still have $4,000
a year to spend Have you any tears to
shed over his troubles Finally, suppose a
man has AN income of 81 600 and that his