The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-04-11
wuArIrs ADVOCATES THINK.

Hen. Lawrence E. Mccain, the only
Democratic member Of the Illinois dele
cation in Congress that ESCAPED the gen.
eral Democratic wreck last November,
was In Washington yesterday and said
to a reporter who asked him what he
thought of the decision of the Supreme
Court:
my support of the income tax in Con-
greSs was based on the belief that the
wealth of the country should contribute
in an equitable degree to the necessary
expenditures of the Government, so that
the masses might to a large extent be
relieved of the burdens they had previous
~ borne. But now that the Supreme
Court has declared the law invalid as 10
two of the chief sources OF income,
care very N.tle about the rest of II. In
fact | had rather have seen the whole
law declared null than TO have had 1t
emasculated in this way
This statement Of an advocate Of the
income-tax law is entirely confirmatory
of the two views of 1t entertained by
The Times. II has always been perfectly
obvious to us that the underlying motive
for the law was a determination to sad
die on rich men burdens that the fairly
well-to-do were to be exempt from. The
limit Of $4,000 exempts the overwhelming
mass of the people from the burden
and imposes it on not more, perhaps,
than 10000. These are selected for the
burden because, In the ups and downs
of life, they have been more lucky than
~ Lo~ o..l nd urfr
spirit prompts the others to say. "as you
have been luckier than we, then you
shall bear burdens which in fairness We
ought to bear" Under such scheme
the degree of mans good fortune is TO
test the quantum of his duty to his Gov
eminent. The unlucky are under no obi
cations to their Government, the lucky
must carry all of its burdens.
1t ought to be obvious 10 any one that
the institutions Of no government can be
lasting that tolerate any such idea. Men
submit 10 social rule upon the hypothesis
that the rule is TO bear i'm exactly the
same way upon all of them. The idea
Is that each man is TO receive the same
one receives. and that each one is to
contribute to the burdens Of the govern
ment upon scale that win make one
pay at exactly the same rate that another
pays. II man with $4,000 pays s.. a
man with 100000 is 10 pay $50. because
100000 are ten times as much as $4,000,
and so are ten times as much as S.. This
is the rule of equity, and therefore of
fairness amongst men. But IL this rule
Is violated and the man with $4,000 is
charged s. or exempted from taxation
altogether, and the man with $4,000 is
charged $500. the latter has a right to
that an undue share of the
burdens is put upon him. and that the
former is unjustly released from his pro-
per share Of them.
When the case is put in this bold and |
extreme way, there Is hardly any one |
that would not admit that the ir,posi- |
ton of $500 on the 10000 man, and of
S or nothing on the $4,000 man. was
wrong But there is absolutely no diff |
erence In principle between that case ana
the case OF charging n man with an
income tax whose income is si.ooc and ex-
'mpting the man entirely whose income is
1900 The rule OF equity and right is
ioiatcd n each case. and when that
'ule is departed from principle is aban-
ioned. and the degree of injustice which
ONE part Of the population win be forced
o submit 10 becomes nothing but Z ouss- ]