New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-04-09
A KANSAS Reform.

The proposal 10 tax nordinate wealth is
good thing. The Kansas POpulists who have
blessed the world already with so many new
and bright deas-so many, in fact. that before
they could get one fairly 10 the attention of the
outside world they had already forgotten it in
their zeal for half dozen others-have brought
out this brilliant plan for relieving everybody
except the enemies of society from the burdens
of government by taxing inordinate wealth
While they graciousy admit that the plan may
not be SO far advanced that the people Of the
United States can vote upon it for the next
three years. they intend in 1900 10 sweep the
country again the Farmers Alliances did.
Such trilng obstacles as stand in the way of
the submission of a constitutional amendment
by Congress, and its adoption by the requisite
number Of States, do not seem to Kansas re-
formers Of the least Importance.
Really, everybody ought to agree to this
amendment There is not a citizen from the
poorest TO the richest who does not perceive
that inordinate wealth ought to be taxed. The
only difficulty is to ascertain what is inOrdnate
wealth and whether it is merely a matter of
amount or of the mode of employment. Proba
bly, the rest of the world would conclude that
millionaire who used his property as a trust
wealth than salOonkeeper who used it TO make
more money from the appetteS Of others. Most
people would perhaps conclude that such wealth
as is spent by Kansas farmers and others in
making war on other property should all OF it be
taxed 10 the utmost, whether ii amounts TO
more than an equity interest in Il heavily mort
gagged farm or TO the office furniture of a legal
demagogue. Anything man has who is en-
gagged In the Kansas industry Of raising hell
instead Of crops is obviously nordinate wealth
and ought to be taxed out of existence.
But these are the natural impressions Of out
side barbarians not yet enlightened. Kansas
statesmen, no doubt, would determine inordi-
late wealth purely by the amount. At first the
progressive people of that State would fix on
the mutl-millionaires or perhaps the million
aires, as having inordinate wealth which ought
TO bear all the burdens Of taxation. But ii
would not take long to drive all the persons OF
that variety out of the State with all theil
movable property, and to get the rest of theft
property transferred in fragments TO nominal
purchasers or agents or trustees, so that their
actual ownership could not be traced. In lit
tie while there would be no millonaires left in
Kansas to be taxed, and the State Government.
If it could get no other sustenance, would fall
into q condition Of innocuOus desuetude.
But meanwhile the great majority Of voters
would be applying their vigorous and original
minds to the arthmctical problem with some
result If the total wealth in Kansas is about
! 81 500 OOO, 900. and the whole number of voters
Is 335, $50, or about third Of Million evidently
the average wealth must be about 5000 for
each voter, and the unholy and unhappy person
who Is holding more than thnt average would
be viewed by the majority of voters as the
| pOssessor of inordinate wealth. The dem l.
gOgue lawyer and the farmer who raises no
other crop except the sulphurOus one already
mentioned would then have a delightful time
| in taxing the more thrifty and industrious peO-
pie out Of the State or into the pOorhouse. To
/ I've sure even then a small difficulty might arise.
| No property would be worth anything in such
State and the man who wanted TO sell bit Of
land would be unable. and nobody could quote
the real estate lie owned AT any appreciabe part
of its present value and presently the man who
had any property at all would have, In the es-
timation Of the majority of voters, inordinate
wealth But this would only be an approach
TO the blessed state Of things when nobody
would have anything and all would live on
wind