The Washington herald. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1906-1939, 1909-11-23

tax and the death duties at the same
time and licensing proposals were impos-
I Cd on an industry which already yielded
| one-third OF the revenue.
Coming down 90 the land tax. the oppo-
sition leader sali he took 40 this subject
with hated breath because so many menu
/ hers OF the house were landowners.
However. he insisted that gave them eX-
( perieuce and good judgment IN voting.
/ He claimed that landowners who were
content with a modest return on their
, holdings We're entitled 90 as much favor
as an investor In American stocks, but
[ this investor escaped. Land taxes would
change the whole face OF the country
and Lord Lansdowne conteuded that leg
islation along this line should Ae simple
and easy.
Taxed Several Times.
The present bill. he said descended %
the lowest depths Of obscurity Some
neople were taxed not once or twice. but
three or four times for the same piece
OF property. The bill. according TO Lord
Lan-downe. would render every transac-
ton in the land more complicated and
more onerous. and in this way the open
ing UP OF land would be retarded and
made more difficult.
The bin had so shocked confidence that
the building trade was IN a state or stag
nation Lord Lansdowue said ne OBJ
'ectcd 70 the taxes because they We're
unprDductivc and cumulative. They were
taxes ON the people on what they had
not They singled out one class. They
fottered land transactions and were based
on the socialistic principle on which the
government had acted, but hadn't the
courage 10 avOw-
His lordship said the time had come 70
reconsider the question OF free imports.
With more and more restricted markets,
higher barriers had been erected by for
eign countries and free trade could no
longer be maintained
Lord Iansdowne ridiculed the notion
that the rejection Of the bill would pro-
yoke lrreparabIe chaos, which, he said
would come from its passage. not from
Us rejection.
In regard 10 the consequences 10 their
lordships OF the rejection Of the bill BY
the house, the Marquis Of Landsdowne
said the struggle had 70 come. The
country would not think the worst, but
the better. Of the house if the peers
showed the courage Of their opinions
Their lordships, he said, would lose. If at
this moment they failed TO protect those
who were looking to them for the pro-
lection OF their constitutional rights
Final judgment on the Dill was not pro-
posed in his amendment. That was rele-
gated 20 the opinion Of the country.
Replying 10 Lord Landsdowne, the lord
chancellor said:
COnstitutionally "NO."
80 fer as the rights Of this house are
concerned TO reject the budget. I would
say that, according to the law, it would
be undeniably yes, but constitutonally
no In al great matters which affect
the nation, we are governed more by
custom than by law. In the history of
the Lords there has not been a single in
stance IN which they have been con-
fronted by the problem OF what to do IN
the event of supplies being stopped"
Lord Landsdowne," he continued, had
asked them 10 attempt a direct invasion
Of the prerogatives OF the Crown and
the privileges Of the Commons. Their
lordships were invited to overthrow the
constitution, which was the envy Of all