The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1894-11-01

| crat II he agreed with these views-wltn
| those OF Candidate HXdebfandt for IN
ytancc-he would pro&bly tell you he
did not and would almost be affronted at
| the question. We can see nothing. how
ever. which is logically an objection to
| Mr.. Hldebrandts views which Is not
/ OF equal force as an objection 20 the
| present law. The only objection we can
| make TO Mr.. HildCbrandts proposition
! IS this Society Is organized upon the
| idea that each man shall have the same
! benefits from the laws that any oth't
man has. and that each man shall coni'i-
butte to the cost OF making and mann 'a'"
Ing the laws ratably according 10 Iii9
ability 10 contribute. IL a man mas F'
worth Of property the laws are 10 PIo,
tect him in the peaceful possession anu
enjoyment OF that property. ana u.
10 pay towards the expenses Oh '''
one dollar. we will say. II p't mas
FIVE times that much property 'no IA"
are 10 protect him in the ped'''U' p''
session and enjoyment OF ms ~
and he is 10 pay Eve times mat num- VI
five dollars towards the expenses Oh '''e
law. Now. II that principle Is hdu'' ."
a. ~ mn will Get equal benefits from
,bo l.y,s and each man will pay his
r,tabIo share Of the expenses al 'he
law gut II that principle IS departed
from in the smallest particular then one
ma, will receive an advantage from
,,,.,...,pr,ept that is denied to an
o,hor one. The present income tax Ia"
IL imposcd exclusively upon those per
...u
c,bilo all those having incomes Dcl""
5000 receive exactly the SANE pr"teeuoh
for their property from the laws 40
those whoec incomes exceed $lV'' u
follows then that while all receive cH-
..tl,, t,n came benefits from the laws
all the expense OF supporting the laws
i. cast upon q small part, while inc rest
,,.t taa benefits without contributing 10
tho cost This IS an objection to the
,,roecpt income tax law. and it Is our
Injection to what MI Hindebrandt pro
poses. But II we may violate the rue
If fairness and equality to the extent
that our present income tax IA" Nlo-
9tcs II. we see nothing that can logically
sion MS short Of the proposition OF oltheI
Mr.. Udchraut or Mr.. Wright. II we
rrlv take from the citiz more thah MS
fair proportion TO the extent OF even one
cent. who snail say MS nay when We
would take from MIN more than ms IAN
rroportiou TO the extent OF two cents
And If we may take from him more than
his fair proportion at all, how can we
be- logically limited i'm the quantity eN-
cceding his fair proportion that we VIII
take?
TO our apprehension. therefore, there
is no reason on which the advocate OF
the present income tax can con"ehh
the proposition of Mcssrs. Ilildebrandt
and Wright In our opinion All OF
them should be advocates of the prop"-
sifors Of those eminent Socialists ana
popuUsts. and while they are taxing
what does not belong TO them, we don /
see why they decline what McSsfS.
Iuld,brandt and Wright are bold enough
10 come out openly and claim.
one other of these gentlemen made the
most candid and frank awOyal Of all.
This was Mr.. George Lanbleson, fOpu-
Hst candidate in the Twelfth district. lie
s.,id. Il am i'm favor OF making higher
r,t. cf taxation than the present income
tac law. | want those rich fellows 10
helm support US" NOW there is frank
avoval and Il candidate after our own
heart There is a man with the courage
of his convictions. Most Of the advocates
or the income tax want those rich ItI-
lows TO support them" but they s'i''"
| their wishes behind a number OF pre-
t.xts of one sort or another. Hut the