The Louisiana Democrat. [volume] (Alexandria, La.) 1845-1918, 1896-08-26

advantage III advocating GHc uOCGIlAc VI
nonintcrference when great aggregations
of wealth are trespassing upon the rights
of individuals. We welcome such oppo-
sition, it is the highest endorsement which
could be bestowed upon us. We are con-
tent to have the cooperation Of those who
desire to overcome the government admin
istration without fear or favor. 1t is not
the wish Of the great public that trusts
should spring into existence and override
the weaker members Of society; tits not the
wish of the general public that these trusts
should destroy competition ana then col
lect such takes as they will from those who
are at their mercy, nor is 1t the wish Of the
general public that the Observation-Disclosures
of government have been so often prosti-
tuted to purposes of private gain. Those
who stand upon the Chicago platform be-
lieve 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 tn, public veal. They do
not excuse petit larceny, but they declare
that grand larceny is equally a crime; they
do not defend the occupation Of the high
wayman VINO rous Jne Llsuspeculuy trav-
eler but they include among the trans
gressors those who, through the more po-
lite and less hazardous means Of legisla-
ton appropriate to their own use the pro-
ceeds of the toll of others. The command
mcnt Thou shalt not STEAL" thundered
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 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 Gre
ated by the Almighty. 1t follows as
a necessary conclusion that vicious legis-
lation must be remedied by the people
who suffer from the effects of such leg
islation and not by those who enjoy its
benefits.
The Chicago platform has been con-
dernned by some because it dissents from
an opinion rendered by the supreme court
declaring the income tax law unconstitu-
tional Our critics even 90 SO far as to ap-
ply the name anarchist to those who stand
upon that plank of the platform. 1t must
be remembered that we expressly recog-
nize the binding force of that decision so
long as it stands as part of the law of the
land. There is in the platform no sugges-
ton of plan of an attempt to dispute the
authority of the supreme court. The par
ty is simply pledged to use "all the consti-
tutional nower which remains after that
decision or which may come from its re-
versal by the court as it may hereafter 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 this same court sustained, with
out dissenting voice, an income tax law
almost iden 5ical with the one recently
oyerthrown. Has not a future court as
much right to return to the judicial
precedents Of century as the present
court has to depart from them2 When
courts allow rehearings they admit that
error is possible The late decision against
the income tax was rendered by majority
of one after arehearing.
While the money question overshadows
all other questions in Importance, desire
it distinctly understood that l shall offer
| no apology for the income tax plank of
the Chicago platform. The last income tax
law sought to apportion the burdens of
the government more equitably among
those who enjoy the protection of the
government. At present the expenses of
the Federal government, collected through
internal revenue taxes and import dutit >,
are especially burdensome upon the poorer
classes of society. A law which collects
| from some citizens more than their share
of taxes and collects from other citi.
zens less then their share is simply an in
dill ect means of the transferring of one
mans property to another mans pocket
and while the process may be quite salts
| factory to the men who escape just taxa.
ton, it can never be satisfactory to those
who are overburdened The last income
tax law with It's exemption provisions
when considered in connection with othel
methods Of taxation in force, was not I'M
just to the possessors of large incomes be
cause they were not compelled to pay a to
tai Federal tax greater than theil
share. The income tax Is not new, nor il
based upon hostility to the rich. The
system is employed in several of the mos
important nations Of Europe and every in
come tax law now upon the state books IL
any land, SO far as have been able to AS
certain contains an exemption clause
While the collection Of an income tax II
other countries does not make it necessary
for this nation to adopt the system, ye
it ought to moderate tho language Of thos
who denounce the income tax as an assault
upon the we'll to do. Not Only shall l re
fuse to apologize for the advocacy Of an in
come tax law by the national convention
but shall also refuse to apologize for tn
exercise by it of the right to dissent iron
a decision of the supreme court. In a gov
eminent like ours every public official is
public servant, whether he holds Office b
election or by appointment, whether h
serves for a term Of years or during goo
behavior, and the people have a right
criticise his oficinl acta. Confidence
everywhere the parent of despot1sm; fire
government exists In jealousy and not i
confdence-these are the words of Thoma
Jefferson and submit that they present
truer conception Of popular government
than entertained by those who would pre-
hibit an unfavorable comment upon
court of decision. Truth will vindicate il
self; only error fears free speech. No pull
lie official who conscientiously discharge
his duty as he sees it will desire to deny
those whom he serves the right to discus
his official conduct"
The Money Question.
Now let me ask you to consider the pa
amount question of this campaign-th
money question. It is scarcely necessar
to defend the principle of bimetallisn
No national party during the entire histo1
Of the United States has ever declare
against it, and no party in this campaig
has had the temerity to oppose it. Thre
parties, the Democratic, Populist and 81
yer parties, have not only declared for b
metallisn, but have outlined the specif