The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-04-15
fRANE G. HOWE. Editor and Publisher
Also Concerning Tax Reform.

Elsewhere the Banner reprints
some comment of the Mortified News
on the tax question in which the News
gives its views frankly and with un-
doubted sincerity but falls into the err
ror of most people in discussing tax
matters, through seeing one thing and
of most people in discussing tax mat
tiers, through seeing one thing and
wanting to fix that without taking up
the matter of cause and effect in their
broad aspects. and attempting to get
at the root of the evils.
For one thing the News says that
its position in opposing certain pro
posals is prompted solely on the pro
position that compelling a person
in any line Of business to pay taxes on
what he does not own is "at radical
variation with the fundamental prin-
cipals of taxation" The News may
be right but we cannot but believe
that this is putting the cart before
the horse.
We believe that the real problem
of taxation is to make the people who
have much property pay taxes in pro-
portion to that property. With that
problem adjusted the burden of taxa
ton on those of little or no property
will not be severe enough to warrant
much special legislation in their be-
half
One other statement of the News
shouldbe considered, Says the News
Mr.. DeBoers position as an adyo-
cate of the abolition of the offset is
referred to by the Banner The views
of such men as ex-State Treasurer Ba-
con and Senator Cory who opposed
Mr.. DeBoer in this matter are entitled
to equal weight at least"
Firstly the News is wrong in its
reference OF the Banner. The Banner
said nothing whatever in reference to
Mr.. DeBoer's position on the offset
bill or any other one bill. What the
Banner did refer to was the judgment
of men as to whom they would follow
on any bill when they wish TO do right
but confessedly do not know which
is right.
As to the three gentlemen mention
ed the Banner will not and does not
make any comparison but would ask
the News to hold the consideration to
an abstract proposition. On one side
of a question suppose there is a man
of great ability who has proved be
yond question by actual performance
that he is acting on higher plane
than self interest. Isn't his opinion
worth more and isn't he safer leader
than any man, no matter how honest
his intentions, whose public acts are
openly and manifestly on the side of
their private business interest? We
think so. We cannot all of us spend
months and years studying the tech
meal details and problems of polit-
ical economy and government. Most
of us must follow men whom we be-
lieve know more about a thing than
we do. We must make the choice for
Shall we follow some
loud mouthed demagogue who blarts
and bellows on the street corners and
in public places? Shall we follow
some cunning schemer who tells the
people how he loves them but at the
same time is always working for his
own glory and is forever reaching
with a long handled rake for the Ii
ons share of the coin? Or shall we
follow the man whose own works and
record show that he has some ability
and at the same time has proved that
he is philosophical, generous and
above all, honest and earnest in eff
fort to improve the conditions sur
not the few but the many?
Whatever we do we shall make some
and sometimes go backwards
but if we are good citizens we shall
keep right on trying.
We hardly think that the News can
refer to the Banner in what it says
in regard to tolerance, for the Banner
has repeatedly confessed its ignor-
ance in this matter of tax reform.
We have studied the question long
and earnestly and have tried hard to
it but not yet do we know
what to do or how to do it. We have
only sympathy for those who are in
a like position even though the num-
Der include the great body Of the cit
liens.
The individual opinion of the Ban
ner is something like this: it is prob
able that there is as much and ner-