The people's journal. (Pickens, S.C.) 1891-1903, 1896-08-27

dorscment which could be bestowed
upon US. We are content to have tho
cooperation of those who desire fl
have the Government administered
without fear or favor. 1t is not tho
wish OF tho general public that trust,
should spring into existence and over
rldc the weaker members of sociaty
1T Is not the wish Of the general publ,
that these trusts should destroy com.
petition and then collect such tax ~
they will from those who are at their
| mercy nor IS ID the wish of the gcncrai
public that the instrumcntalitics OF
Government have been SO often pro.
stltuted to purposes OF private gain
Ihoso who stand upon the Chicago
platform believe that the Government
should not only avoid wrong-doing, but
thtt ~ should also prevent wrong
doing: and they believe that tho Inv,
| should be enforced alike against ali
enemies Of the public veal. They do
not excuse petit larcency, but they de-
clare that grand larceny is equally a
crime they do not defend the occupa-
tlon OF the highwayman who robs the
unsuspccting traveller, but they include
among the transgrcssors those who,
through the moro polite and loss haz-
ardous means Of Legislation, appropriate
toll OF others. The commandments
Thou shalt not steal," thuudercd
from Sinai and reiterated in the lcgis-
latlon OF all nations, is no rcspcctor Of
persons. 1T must DC applied to the
great as we'll as the small; to the strong
as we'll as the weak; to the corporate
person created by law rs well as TO the
person Of llesh and blood created hy
the blood Almighty. No govern
ment is worthy of the name which
Is not able to protect from every
arm uplifted for his injury the hum
bicst citizen who lives boueath the
hag. 1t follows as a necessary con
clusion that vicious legislation must
be remcdie, by the people who sullcl.
from the effects Of such legislation.
anu not by those VINO enjoy It's benefits
THE SUPREME COURT.
The Chicago platform has been con
demncd by some because it Gssents
from an opinion rendered by the Su.
preme1 Court declaring the income
tax law unconstitutional. Our critics
even go so far as to apply tho name
anarchist to those who stand upon that
plank OF the platform. 1t must be
remembered that we expressly recog-
nlzc the binding force OF that decision
so long rs it stands as 3 part Of the
law Of the land. There Is in the plat
form no suggestion Of an attempt to
dispute the authority OF the Supreme
Court. Inc party is simply pledged to
use "all the constitutional power
which rcmains after that decision or
which may come from its reversal by
the court as it may hereafter be con
stituted."
Is there any disloyalty in that
pledge? For hundred years the
Supreme Court Of the United States
has sustained the principle which un-
derlles the income tax. Some twenty
years ago this same court sustained
without dissenting voice an income
tax law almost identical with the one
recently ovrrtnrOwn has not d future
court as much right to return to the
judicial prccedehtS Of Il century as the
present court has to depart from ti1em?
When courts all have rchcarings they
admit that error is possible: : the late
decision against the income tux was
rendered by IL ma ority Of one after II
rChearing.
THE INCOME TAX PLANK.
While the money question over
shadows all other questions in impOr-
lance desire it distinctly understood
that | shall offer no apology for the
income tax plank Of the Chicago plat
form. The last income tax law sought
to apportion the burdens Of government
more equally among those who enjoy
the protection OF the government. At
present the expenses Of the Federal
government, collected through inter
nal revenue taxes and import duties,
arc especially burGenSome upon the
poorer classes Of society. A law which
collects from some citizens more THAI
their share Of the taxes and collects
from other cltiz MS less than their share
is simply an indirect means of the
transferring or one mans property TO
another mans pocket and while the
process may be quite satisfactory TO
the man who escapes just taxation it
can mover be satisfactory to those who
are ovcrbu"dcncd. The last income
tax law, with its exemption provisions,
whom considered in conpcction with
ollcr methods OF taxation in force.
was NOT unjust TO the poss ssors Of
large Incomes, because they were not
compelled to pay a total Federal TAX
greater than their share The income
tax Is not now, nor is it based upon
hostility to the rich. The system is
employed in several Of the most i'm.
portant nations of Europe, and every
income TAX law now upon the statute
books in any land, so lar as I have
been able TO ascertain, contains an
exemption clause. While the collcc.
tion OF an income tax in other couu-
tries does not make it necessary for
this nation to adopt the system, yct it,
ought to moderate the lanpunGc Of
those who denounce tho income tax ~
an assault upon the well-to-do.
Not only shall [ refuse to apologize
Tor the advocacy of an income tax law
by The national convention, but shall
also refuse to apologize for the exercise
by it. Of tho right to dissent from q de-
cision OF the Supreme Court. In a roy-
ernment like ours every public official is
public servant, whether he holds Office
by election or by appointment, whether
he serves for term OF years or DURING
good behavior, and the people have 3
right to criticise his official nets
"Contidcnce is everywhere the parent
OF dcspotism; free government exists
in jealousy and not in condolences"
These are the words of Thomas Jcfrer.
son, and | submit that they present
a trucr conception of popular govern
mcnt than entertained by those who
would prohibit an unfavorable com
mnnt uDOn 81 court dppis;op p,,,.L