Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-03-30
p,,sIxc WORE REVENUE.

| sneclal from washington says that
| Congress is at last waking up 10 the ia''
| that we must have additional revenue
! legislation in order to provide TOT i'e'
| ing the extraordinary current EXPENSE
| and the prospective war expenses a'So'
| that while Mr.. Dlngley has not se'
| brought the subject before the ways a"u
Means Committee Of the House. he VIII
soon do so. There seems no doubt tha'
| even should war be averted' soiheti''"s
! will have to be done TO raise more re'e
! nue.. Some Of the most adept pupiis III 'i'e
| Dlngley school of calculation admit tha'
| mace will not obviatc the necessity vi
,,,.o,.,d,ry for an increase OF revenue TO
| the amount of S25.Ooo.Ooo or S3O.wo's~ per
| annum for several years to come ln'S
Increase will, as they concede' pe ue-
manded by future expenditures that VIII
| he imperative on account OF the mllitary
and naval preparations now in progress
When 1t is consldered~'that these adep'S
in the Dngley school of calculation
must necessarily have faith, or profess u
have faith" in Dingley's repeated ue-
monstraticns" Of the virtues OF his Dill as
| q .'revestie producer" we can safely dou-
| bIe their figures. They take 10 account
| of the deficit of nearly s5O'OOo'Vo that mas
| been piled up in the eight months the
| Dingley act has been in operation.
But discarding the dehcit-creating cha-
| racter Of Dinghsyism, which would DC
greatly enhanced in the event OF hostlh-
| ties and accepting the figures OF the
| DingIey pupils, if peace means that we
will have TO raise $25,OOO000 or SO,coVo
more Of revenue per annum Tor se'era'
wears IN come. what would war mean IN
respect of this matter? or to put the
question a little more strongly, ana III
form i'm which 1t is more liable 10 DE
crashed by the public in all of its slghl-
6cance. what would war mean in respect
of increasing the burdens of taxation
In one way or another we have on sew
eral occasions directed attention to TINS
! question. but we feel that we cannot keep
# too prominently TO the 'front.' As we
have always maintained, the kno"leuse
that war would entail great ana sr'hu-
ing increase of taxation should not count
against our engaging in justifabie war
But in the absence of justification lor
war that knowledge should, apart from
| the moral obloquy involved in unJustila-
BILE hostilties, exert a potential influence
for peace. However, the truth Is that
MO cannot separate the economic from
Tho moral aspect of the question. lie VINO
| rms may read that the heavier part OF
the burden Of increased taxation wouiu
IN tbe end fall upon the masses-the peo-
pie least able to carry such purueh'
These. as is the case under the Dihgley
act would be paying tribute largely for
tho onricbment of the favored few. For
them TO encourage the precipitation OF an
uniustifable war would be TO contract TO
nav blood money pure and simple soiely
to the end of making themselves ana
those dependent upon them poorer, That
certain rich interests might become rich
or. Such a course would mean the court
ing Of death and suffering for thousands
| and the yielding up of millions OF dollars
yearly of hard-earned money for long
season. in violation Of duty to SELF, to
right and to what should be the dictates
| of public conscience. Therefore, the
masses are under double obligation
have double incentive-to be conserva-
| tive And not only for the reasons indi-
Gated. but because public conservatism
would be the most powerful influence
that could be exercised in restraining the
politicians from bringing on war for poll
| teal ends.