Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1896-08-14
...sSsEssrxsas z.ssaaaxasEslses

of wealth are tfeSpasslng upon tie iShA9 of individuals. We welcome such oppo- stion, it is the highest endorsement which could be bestowed upon us. e are con tent to have the cooperation ot those "lo desire to overcome the government admin istration without fear or favor. le IS ho' the wish of the great public that trusts should spring into existence and override the weaker members of society; is not the wish of the general public that these trusts should destroy competition and then col lect such taxes as they will from those who are at their mercy, nor Is it the wish or the general public that the instrumentantles of government have been 80 often prostl- tuted to purposes of private gain Those who stand upon the Chicago platform be- lieye that the government should not only avoid wrong doing, but that 1t should also i prevent wrong doing; and they believe that the law should be enforced alike against all enemies of th4 public veal. They do not excuse petit larceny, but they declare that grand larceny is equally q crime; they do not defend the occupation of the high wayman who robs the unsuspeeting traY- eler, but they include among the trans l gressors those who, through the more DO l lite and less hazardous means or Ieglsla- 1 tion appropriate to their own use the pro 1 ceeds Of the toll of others The command ment "Thou shalt not steal" |" thundered i from Sinai and reiterated ill the legislation 1 of all nations. Is no respecter of persons. It must be applied to the great as well as Che small; to the strong as well as the weak; to the corporate person created by law as well as to the person of flesh and blood ere ated by the Almighty. It follows as a necessary conclusion that vicious leg1s- lation must be remedied by the people who suffer from the effects of such leg isiation and not by those who enjoy it's benefits.
 The Chicago platform has been con demned by some because it dissents from an opinion rendered by the supreme court l declaring the income tax law unconstitu- tional. Our critics even go 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 power which remains after that decision or which may come from it's re versaI by the court as it may hereafter be constituted. Is there any d1sloyalty lh that pledge2
 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 q dissenting voice. an income tax law almost identical with the one recently overthrown. Has not q future court as much right to return to the judicial preeedents of a century as the present court has to depart from themS When courts allow rehearings they admit that error is possible. The late decision against the income tax was rendered by majority of one after a rehearing
 While the money question oYershadoW' all other questions in importance, desire it distinctly understood that 1 shall offe1 no apology for the income tax plank O the Chicago platform. The last income ta2 law sought to apportion the burdens o the government more equitably among those who enjoy the protection Of th
 government At present the expenses 0 internal revenue taxes and import duties are especially burdensone upon the poore classes of society. A law which collect from some citizens more than their Shar ;. of taxes and collects from other eitf , zens less than their share is simply an in direct means of the transferring of on, mans property to another mans pocket and while the process may be quite satis factory to the men who escape just taxa t1on, It can never be satisfactory to thos. who are oyerburdened The last income tax law with its exemption provisions when considered i'll connection with othe1 methods of taxation in force, was not un just to the possessors of large incomes be 1 hay Dpf lad To tai Federal tax greater than theil share. The income tax is not new, nor i. based upon hostility to the rich. The system is employed in several of the most important l ltions of Europe and every in come tax law now upon the state books in any land, so far as 1 have been able to as certain, contains an exemption clause While the collection of an income tax in other countries does not make it necessary for this nation to adopt the system, yet 1t ought to moderate the language of those who denounee the income tax as an assault upon the well to do Not only shall I re- fuse to apologize for the advocacy of an in. come tax law by the national convention. but shall also refuse to apologize for the exercise by it of the right to dissent from 8 decision of the supreme court In a gov. ernment like ours every public official is a | pupnc 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 right to criticise his official acts. Confidence is everywhere the parent of despotism; fires government exists in jealousy and not in confdence-these are the words of Thomas Jefferson and submit that they present g truer conception of popular government than entertained by those who would pro. hibit an unfavorable comment upon & court of decision. Truth will vindicate it. self; only error fears free speech. No pub. lie official who conscientiously discharges 1 his duty as he sees 1t will desire to deny to those whom he serves the right to discuss l his official conduct,
 The Money Question.
 Now let me ask you to consider the par amount question of this campaign-the money question It is scarcely necessary