The daily morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1883-1899, 1894-02-14

ancial questions-a man whose ability IS
great, and whose logic is ordinarily uh-
answerable. 1t seems TO me that in TINS
case his heart Is not in his words ana
his arguments, like wet dishrag, fan
Of their own weight. He calls It "a war
measure" Suppose 1t was. The time
which tried mems souls" gave us many
laws and measures before untried, but
which remain among our most bene-
fetal institutions. The national bank
ing system was q war measure; so, TOO
in its perfected form is our Internal
revenue system. 1t is objected to as
"class legislation" Is not the tax on
whiskey and tobacco also class legisla-
tion? What tax does not bear heavier
on some one class than on others?
Then that has must lose" is homely
adage, but one which ought TO be true
when it comes to paying taxes. 1T Is Il
tax hard to collect, and which VIII pe
evaded by many" Granted; but do we
for that reason neglect to tax notes ana
accounts for state and county purposes!
If the people at whom this tax Is almeu
believe they can evade it, why then 90
they object to the law? If it is impo-
tent, what harm can 1t do? 1t Is said
that "a mans private business viii be
subjected to the prying eyes OF govern
ment officials" No one complains OF
too much Espionage" over the national
banks; or over the dlstilleries, except
the whiskey producers. A little more
publicity and espionage would have
saved investors millions of dollars lost
through swindling loan associations,
and railroads which have gone into the
receivers hands during the past year
Grand as have been its results, and
reluctant as all men who are interested
in the welfare Of our country would be
to see 1t pushed aside, our tariff system
notorlously bears more harshly on the
poor man than on the rich. The man
who has yearly income of $4,000 does
not spend ten times as much for the |
protected necessaries of life as the la
borer who has $500 year for his hire. |
The man who annually expends more
than $4,000 on his family, is giving them
what to ninety-nine one-hundredths of |
the people of this country would be
luxuries. And such a one should just
ly pay the government for the protec-
tion 1t gives his business.
1t seems to me the gist Of the theory
advanced by many of our party papers
is that because democrats are now up
holding income taxation republicans
should oppose it. Would it not be better
to take the bull by the horns; say to the
I'VE accept your proposi-
ton. We are glad to see that you are
only thirty years behind us in intelli-
gence, and are now willing to take the
position we held at that time. We hail
with joy the budding signs OF an intel
ect, and hope that thirty years more
Of good times under the Mckinley tariff
(Which we will have as soon as the
Lord gives us a chance to turn the
'ascals out) will bring you to see the
errors of free trade"
The measure proposed by the demo-
,ratic majority in congress may be lack
ng in detail, but I contend that the
of income taxation is right,
md that we should not oppose it simply
IN partisan grounds. BY accepting it,
epublcans can checkmate the move of
he opposition, and retain in the party
many who might be driven to the popu-
lists, through the idea that we favor
he rich at the expense OF the poor. II
will also place us in a position such that
When we get our innings we can make
he tariff prohibltive on many foreign
mportations, and yet haye prolific
ource of revenue. :
CHAS. +. LESTER, |