The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-10-31
HE ERROR- or An EMINENT
LAWYER

J opinion Of The Times the most COnscrva-
| tive citizen that society has But the
! training Of the lawyer does not always
develop the statesman. The statesman
aims at making the laws bear i'm exactly
the same way upon all The lawyer has
his mind always fixed upon making men
obey the laws that are. The states
man is for better laws, the lawyer for
obedience to the laws that We have
James c. Garter, Of New York city,
VINO was the leading counsel Of the
United States before the Behring Sea
Arbitration Commission, Is one Of the
most eminent lawyers in this country
and. indeed. in the world, but what we
are about to say Of him will make his
case very remarkable illustration of
what we have said above. Last Sunday
New York World contains an interview
with him upon the income tax, which we
print elsewhere this morning. that, with
all Mr.. Carters eminonce as a lawyer is
about the worst specimen of statesman
ship that we have met with in a long
time
Mr. Carter lays down as the corner
stone OF all taxation this highly i'm
portant doctrine. He says: "Thc first
principle upon which taxation should
be based is to make the burden proper.
tionate to the ability TO bear it." Now
we can say with entire franlness that
there Is no proposition of government
which can be advanced that is more alb
solutely odious to MS than just this one
upon which Mr.. Carter POUNDS his entire
creed 1t is a negative of every idea of
equal laws and claim for government
Of every dcsrotic power over the iudt-
vilual and his property that Napoleon
Bnaparte, or Ghcugsis- Kahn, or any other
despot, could ask FOR II is neither inc
first principle nor any other principle
upon which taxation is TO be based that
the burden is TO be made proportonate
10 the ability to bear il. To COnCedc TO
government any such right is to say That
rulers may distribute burdens around
amongst the people as whims, humors,
hatrcds or affections prompt 10 me
utter destruction Of SOM and the cnor-
nous ACKNOWLEDGMENT of others Any such
proposition is in direct antagonism To the
very foundation of the social compact
Burdens are not TO be imposed in proper
ton to the ability of men TO bear them
hut according to a scale that WIN make
every citizen pay in proportion TO his
means. ON such a PLAN an citizens con
tribute TO the support of govcrumcnteach
one according SO his ability. ON the idea
suggested 10y MIR Carter all the burdens
of government may be imposed upon a
few. while the great masses get all the
benefits and cuJoymcutS of 1t but con
tribute nothing to it's cost That was
NAPOLEON Bouapdrtc's idea of govern
mont, and Will be thu idea of every other
dcspot who happens to acquir" supreme
dominion over a people, but it viii never
be the idea upon which constitutional
| republic is founded and administered.
MIR. Carters next proposition is a direct
corollary from his first. He says:
There is another fundamental rule
in relation to taXtiOn which makes taxa
ION OF incomes preferable as "a matter
of Justice TO other forms of taxation. ana
that Is that a state I'm raising its public
revenue should never invade Is principal,
but confnr itself solely 10 Tie profits OF
the community
Here We have the fun disclosure of
Mr.. Carters creed, limited at and in
VOWED. indeed, in his first PROPOSE
ton. but openly proclaimed here. Mr
| Garter looks ON the mass Of property be
| longing to the individuals in state as
| the property of the State, and the in
! comes of the individual citiz MS of the
| state as the income of the State. Hence
ne thinks that the State may exercise
her discretion and determine for herself
whether she will tax HER income, or
whether she will tax HER principal This
is socialism. pure and simple, and what
ever Mr.. Carter may call himself, ne is
a Socialist. We utterly repudiate the doc
trine that the property of the individual
is the property of the State, or that the
income of the individual IS the income OF
the state. The property of the indi-
yiduaI is his and the income of the
individual Is his lie owes a duty to the
state which is that ne snail contribute
from what he has, in consideration of
the protection which the State gives to
it. a sum equal to the sum which every
other individual who has the same
amount Of property or the same income
contributes, and. when ne has performed
that duty he has done all that he is
required to do. The property and the
income then are his held by him subject
to the performance of this duty and
subject TO the performance Of no other
duty whatever, and they are in no sense
whatever the property of the state.
The case is not one for the state 20
determine whether ii would be wiser
and more discreet to tax the whole
body OF incomes considered as something
that she is Interested in or the whole
body of property as something she is
interested in. Ii is case for her TO do
equal justice amongst all her citizens by
calling upon each one TO contribute his
rateabie share TO the burdens of Gov
ernment, whether that contribution comes
our of his principal or his income
Having examined and exposed the fall
laclcs m tpe3. TWO foundation uronoSl-
tons. IL would serve no useful purpose
TO consume space In analyZ!ng each OF
the other arguH ents FOR the present ur-
equal Income tax, which air. Carter
makes. They are all referable TO these
two and they all Turn upon his first
proposition that the Government is every
tnng. the individual nothing. As TIE
Tin'AA In Democrat and not a Socialist.