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

tne present court has to depart from
them? When courts allow rehearine
they admit that error is possible. The
late decision against the income tax
was rendered by a majority of one
, after rehearing.
While the money question over.
shadows all questions in importance,
desire it understood that I shall ofleI
no apology for the income-tax plank
of the Chicago platform. The last in
come-tax law sought to apportion the
burdens OF the government more equi
tably among those who enjoy its pro.
lection. At present the expenses oi
the federal government collected
through internal revenue and import
duties are especially burdensome upon
the poorer classes of society. A law
which collects from some citizens
more than their share OF the taxes and
collects from other citizens less than
their share is simply an indirect means
OF transferring one mans property to
another man, and while the process
may be quite satisfactory to the man
who escapes just taxation, it can never
be satisfactory to those ovsrburdened.
The last income.tax law with its ex.
emption provisions, when considered
in connection with methods OF taxa.
tion in force, was unjust to the pos
SCISSORS OF large incomes because they
were compelled to afford federal tax
greater than their share. The income
tax is not new, nor is it based upon
hostility to the rich. The system as
employed in several OF the most inn
portant nations of Europe, and every
income-tax law now upon the statute
books in any land, as far as 1 have
been able to ascertain, contains an ex-
emption clause. While the collection
of an income tax in other countries
does not make it necessary for this ma
ton to adopt the system, yet it ought
to moderate the language of those
who denounce the income tax as an
assault upon the well-to-do. Not only
shall | refuse to apologize for the adj
vocacy Of an income-tax law by the
National Convention, but shall also
refuse to apologize for the exercise by
it of the right to dissent from deci.
sion OF the Supreme Court. In gov
ernment like ours every public official
is public servant, whether he holds
office by election or by appointment; ;
whether he serves for a term of years
or during good behavior, and people
have right to criticise his official
acts. Confidence is everywhere the
parent of despotism. Free govern
msnt exists in jealousy and not in
confidence. Those are the words of
Thomas Jefferson, and l submit that
they present truer conception of pop
ular government than that enter
tanned by those who would prohibit an
unfavorable comment upon court
decision. Truth will vindicate itself ;
only error fears free speech. No pub
lie official who conscientiously dis
charges his duty as he sees it will de-
sire to deny to those whom he serves
the right TO discuss his official conduct.
APPROACHES THE MAIN POINT.
Now. let me consider the paramount
question of this campaign - the
money question. 1t is scarcely neces-
ssry to defend the principle of BIZ
metallism. No national party during
the entire history OF the United States
ever declared against it, and no party
in this campaign has had the temerity
to oppose it. Three parties, the DEM
ocratic, the Populists and the Silver
party, not only declared for bimetallism
but have outlined the specific legisla-
tion necessary to restore silver to its
ancient position by the side of gold.
The Republican platform expressly
declares that bimetallism is desirable
when it pledges the Republican party
to aid in securing it as soon as the
assistance OF certain foreign nations
can be obtained.
Those who represented the minority
sentiment in the Chicago convention
opposed the free coinage of silver by
the United States by independent ac-
ton on the ground that, in their
judgment, it "would retard or entirely
prevent the establishment Of interna-
tional bimetallism, to which the efforts
OF the government should be steadily
directed"
When they asserted that the efforts
of the government should be steadily
directed toward the establishment OF in
ternational bimetallism, they con-
demned monometallism. The gold
standard has been weighed in the
balance and found wanting. Take
from it the powerful support of the
money-owning and the money
changing classes and it cannot stand
for one day in any nation in the world.
1t was fastened upon the United
States without discussion before the
people, and its friends have never yet
been willing to risk verdict before
the voters upon that issue.
There can be no sympathy or CO.
/ operation between advocates of a
universal gold standard and advocates
of bimetalism. Between bimetallism-
whether independent or international
and the gold standard there is an
impossible gulf. Is this quadrennial