The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1896-08-13
BRYAN AND SILVER



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. 1t is not the
wish or the general public that these trusts
should destroy competition and then collect
such tax as they will from those who are
at their mercy; nor Is 1t the fault of the
general public that the instrumentalities of
government have been so often prostftuted
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 also prevent wrong
doing; and they believe that the law should
be enforced alike against all enemies of
pubic veal. They do not excuse petit
larceny, but they declare that grand larceny
is equally crime; they do not defend the
occupation of the highwayman who robs the
unsuspecting traveller, but they include among
the transgressors those who, through the
more polite and less hazardous means of
legislation, appropriate to their own use the
proceeds of the toll of others.
The commandment Thou shalt not steal -
Numbered from Sinai and reiterated In the
legislation of all nations, is no respecter of
persons. 1t must be applied to the great as
We'll as to the small; to the strong as we'll as
the weak; to the corporate 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 uplifted for his
injury, the humblest citizen who lives be-
meath the flag. 1t follows a necessary
remedied by the people who suffer from the
effects of such legislation and not by those
who enjoy its benefits. The Chicago Mat
form has been condemned by some because
1t dissents from an opinion, rendered by the
supreme court, declaring the income tax law
unconstitutional. Our critics even go sd far
as TO apply the name anarchist to those who
stand upon that plank of the platform n
must be remembered that we expressly recoe-
nize the binding force of that decision so
long as 1t stands part of the law of the
land There is in the platform no sugges-
tion OF an attempt to dispute the authority of
the supreme court. The party is simpIy
pledged to use "all the constitutional mower
which, remains after that decision or which
may come from its reversal by the court as
II may hereafter be constituted
AS TO SUPREME COURT.
Is there any disloyaIty in that pledge? For
hundred years the supreme court of the
United States has sustained the nrinpinle
which underlies the income tax. Some twenty
years ago this same court sustained without
dissenting voice, an income tax law almost
identical with the one recently overthrovn:
mas not future court as much right to re-
turn to the judicial precedents of a century
as the present court had to depart from thema
When courts allow rehearings they admit that
error is possible; the late decision against the.
income tax was rendered by a majority of
one after a rehearing. While the money
question overshadows all other questions in
importance, desire it distinctly understood
that | shall offer no apology for the income
Tax plank of the Chicago platform.
Ihe last income tax law sought to appor-