Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1896-08-21

I
honestly earned"
| repeat his language with unqual
flied approval, and join with him il
the warning which he added, namely
Let them beware of surrenderin.
a political power which they alread,
possess, and which, ii surrendered, will
surely be used to close the doors OF ad
vancement against such as them an,
to fix lew disabilities and burdenl
upon them, till all of liberty shall b,
lost"
Those who daily follow the injunc
ton In the sweat of thy face shall
thou earn bread are now, as they evel
have been, the bulwark of law and or
der, the source of our nations great
ness in time OF peace and it's surest de-
tenders in time of war.
But have only read part of Jack.
sons utterance-let me give you his
conclusion: "But when the laws un-
dertake to add TO those natural and
just advantages artificial distinctions
to grant titles, gratuities and exclusive
privileges, to make the rich richer and
the potent more powerful, the humble
members Of society-the farmers, me-
chanics and day laborers, who have
neither the time nor the means OF Sc
curing like favors for themselves
have right to complain of the injus-
tice of their government"
Those who support the Chicago plat
form indorse all Of the quotations from
Jackson, the latter part as we'll as the
former part. We are not surprised to
find arrayed against us those who are
the beneficisries OF government favor
itism-they have read our platform.
Nor are we surprised to learn that we
must, in this campaign, face the hos
tility of those who find pecuniary ad-
vantage in advocating the doctrine OF
noninterference when great aggrega-
tions of wealth are trespassing upon
the rights OF individuals. We welcome
such opposition-it is the highest in
dorsement which could be bestowed
upon us.
We are content to have the cooper
alton of those who desire to have the
government administered without fear
or favor. 1t is not the wish of the
general public that trusts should
spring into existence and override the
weaker members Of society; it is not
the wish of the general public that
these trusts should destroy competi-
ton and then collect such tax as they
will from those who are at their
mercy; nor is it the fault OF the gen.
eral public that the instrumentality
of the government has so often been
prostituted to purposes of private gain.
Those who stand upon the Chicago
platform believe that the government
should not only avoid wrong doing,
but that it should prevent wrong do.
ing, and they believe that the law
should be enforced alike against all Of
the enemies of the public veal. They
do not excuse petit larceny, but they
declare that grand larceny is equally a
crime; they do not defend the occupa-
ton of highwaymen, who rob the un-
suspecting traveller, but they include
among the transgressors those who,
through the more polite and less haz-
ardous means of Legislation, appropri-
ate to their own use the proceeds OF
toll OF others. The commandment,
"Thou shalt not STEAL" thundered
from Sinai and reiterated in the legis-
lation OF all nations, is no respecter Of
persons. 1t must be applied to the
great as we'll as the small, to the
strong as we'll as the weak, to the cor
porate person created by law as well
as to the person of flesh and blood
created by the Almighty. No govern
ment is worthy of the name which is
not able to protect from every arm up
lifted for his injury, the humblest citi-
zen who lives beneath the flag.
THE INCOME TAX DECISION.
1t follows as necessary conclusion
that vicious legislation must be rem
edied by the people who suffer from
the effects of such legislation, and not
by those who enjoy its benefits. The
Chicago platform has been condemned
because it differs from an opinion rem
dered by the Supreme Court declaring
the income-tax law unconstitutional
Our critics even 60 so far as to apply
the name, anarchist, to those who
stand upon this plank of the platform
1t must be remembered that we ex-
pressly recognize the binding forces OF
that decision so long as it stands as q
part OF the law of the land. There is
in the platform no suggestion of an at
tempt to dispute the authority of the
Supreme Court. The party is simply
pledged to use all the constitutional
power which remains after that deci-
cision, or which may come from this
reversal by the court as it may here
after be constituted" Is there any
disloyalty in that pledge? For 100
years the Supreme Court of the United
States has sustained the principle
which underlies the income tax. Some
20 years ago, the same court sustained,
without dissenting voice, an income
tax law almost identical with the one
recently overthrown. Has not fu-
ture court as much right to return to