Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1906-05-24
The JEFFERSON IDEA.
How 1t Differs FroE Rooscvelt's
Progressive Tax"
THEORIES OF TWO MEN COMPARED

Founder OF Democratic Party Op.
posed All Laws Tending To Create
MonopoIies The P~rcsident's PIan
Means Contiscntion Of Property and
Destruction of Natural Rights.
The presidents recent uttcrance re-
garding what he calls a progressive
tax" on large fortunes has created a
sensation. a tax is a sum Of money
levied and assessed at Il certain rate
on the persons or property of citizens
by the government for public uses. The
president didn't propose to levy a sum
Of money at q certain rate, but to pro-
vide that no person should take by de-
wise or descent more than ~ certain
amount" and that the excess of any
fortune over that particular amount
should be taken by The government.
Such a taking Of private property
would not, however, be taxation, but
co%nfiscation. Congress could not in the
exercise of the taxing power limit the
extent of q mans possessions. It can
not deprive any man of the natural
right to acquire and dispose Of proper
ty. 1t cannot tax q man for the pur-
pose Of limiting the size of his estate
or the amount he shall will or be-
queath to this person or that.
The president said that he favored
"a progressive tax on all fortunes mot
IN all incomes) beyond a certain
amount, either given in life or be-
queathed upon death, to any individual
Saying nothing Of corporations)-a tax
so framed as to put it out of the pow
err of the owner of those enormous for
tunes to hand Over more than a certain
amount to any n Individual"
A man who didn't know what a tax
is might think that the president real
ly meant to tax great fortunes and
exempt small ones. But the whole
proposition is a mischievous fallacy. a
progressive tax which takes all above
q certain amount becomes confiscation
as to all above that amount. The
presidents proposition, then, is to fix
a limit to private fortunes and to con-
f%iscate, not to tax, all of such fortunes
above that limit. Now, if the federal
government. which he was represent
ing when lie made the proposition,
could do what he suggested, then there
would be no need for taxation at all.
1t could fix the limit at. say, 100000
for the time being and strip Carnegie,
Rockefeller, Morgan, Schiff. the Van
derbilts, the Goulds and the Astors as
a preliminary measure. That would
enable it to abolish tariff and internal
revenue taxes. postage, etc. And as
soon as the administration had spent
the proceeds of the first general con
fiscation the limit of private fortunes
might be reduced to 100000. then to
$4,000, to $1,000, to $1,000 and finally
D. 80 cents. This, we insist, is the
presidents theory.
Jefferson, the founder of the Demo
cratic party. expressed the view that
large fortunes are dangerous to the
community in which they exist, but he
never dreamed of confiscation. His
idea was to abolish all laws which
tended to create monopolies and per
petuities. to annul privileges. We cali
get his idea more clearly by quoting
his W words. He said:
I proposed to abolish the law of primo
geniture. x l also obtained leave to
bring in a bill declaring tenants in tail
to hold their lands in fee simple. s"* The
transmission of vast properties from gen
Grafton to generation in the same am
had raised up a distinct set of families,
who. being privileged by law in the per
p%etuation of their wealth, were thus
formed into a patrician order. To
annul this privilege and instead Of an
aristocracy Of wealth, of more harm than
benefit to society, to make an opening for
an arlStocracy Of virtue and talent. which
nature has wisely provided for the direc-
ton of the interests Of society, was deem
ed essential to a we'll ordered republic.
To effect it no violence was necessary,
no deprivation of natural right, but,
rather, an enlargement Of it by a repeal
of the law. = Jefferson's Works, Vol. l,
p. sc.
The laws Of entail and primogeniture
were abolished at the Revolution in ac-
cordance with this view. But rich
men are now reaching the same results
produced by those laws and evading
the statutes which repealed them by
means of putting their property in
trust for long periods for the use of
particular persons or by means OF
wills. The federal government cannot
reach the situation except by imposing
a graduated income tax.
Men have 4 natural right. superior to
any legal right, to all the property
they car honestly acquire, and no gov
eminent can destroy that right with
out destroying its own foundations.
The presidents speech, however. incul-
Gates a violation Of that natural right,
and to the extent that it does so it is
the insane cry of an anarchist.
The Democratic party will never fol
low the leader who would destroy
natural rights, and the talk Of welcom-
ing Roosevelt into the party is a libel
upon the party. Let the Republicans
take care of their own anarchists and
socialists. That party made them; let