The labor argus. [volume] (Charleston, W. Va.) 1906-1915, 1909-10-07
Income 7 ak
Continued from last week.

Continuation last week.
case, shall be valid to all intcnts and pur-
posing amendments, which, in either
ratified by the legislatures of three
fourths of the several states, or by con-
ventions in three fourths thereof, as the
one or the other mode of ratification may
be proposed by the congress: Provided
that no amendment which may be prior
to the year one thousand eight hundred
and eight shall in any manner effect the
first and fourth clauses in the ninth sec
ton of the first article; and that
state, without its consent, shall be de-
prived of its equal sufferage in the SEN
ate
Senators and other students of poll
tics and economies at the national CAPT
tai have been giving attention to the
field of campaign that is now opened
and, it must be confessed, that the most
enthusiastic advocates of the income tax
are not intoxicated by hope. Getting
down to cold figures they cannot, at
this time, see safe majority for the
| adoption of the amendment that is now
before the state legislatures. Twelve
states rejecting it will kill it. By not
| acting either affairmativcly or negative
ly few states may prevent the necess-
AIRY majority.
1t will be seen, therefore, that the fight
for the income tax has only begun. The
| subject should, therefore, be studied by
every citizen. 1t would be well if, in
every princinct in the United States, men,
women, and children would congregate
for the purpose of informing themselves
upon this important subject.
| In providing that the sixteenth amend
| mcnt of the federal constitution shall be
submitted to the legislatures of the
states, rather than to state conventions
| receiving their mandates directly from
| the people, the senate resolution makes
it possible not merely for twelve state
legislatures to defeat the amendment,
| but for the halves of twelve legislatures
| to defeat it. This is Il point that has
not been sufficiently emphasized. Every
American Legislature has two branches,
| coordinate in action and equal in power.
Each branch may exercise a veto upon
the other. To defeat the income tax
amendment, consequently, in any state
the upper house, which is usually the more
conservative body, and the more rcspon-
| sive to the desires and interests of wealth.
This consideration gives fresh precision
| to the problem of securing ratification
| by the necessary number of states 1t
| is manifest that a bicameral legislature.
in which a small minority of the total
! membership of both branches could pre-
vent affirmative action simply ny CON
trolling small-siZed senate, presents
difficulties that would wholly disappear
II the question were submitted to a con-
vention chosen direct from the people.
Connecticut has a small scnate-thirty-
five members; Rhode Island g senate
has hlrty-eight members; New Ham
pshire s has but twenty-four Thirteen
. men in New Hampshire can defeat the in
come tax amendment; twenty in Rhode
Island. and eighteen in Connecticut.
And by what influences have these
bodies usually been dominated in the
past! 1t is not difficult to count IN
nine other legislatures whose senates
might easily decline to take affirmative
action.
So great is the Inherent conservative
OF the American people that it has been
forty years since an amendment IN tho
federal states for ratification
Let me say in conclusion. dear comrade
that this amendment has been n dream
OF the common people for decades. Now
"hen 1t stands some show of being real.
let every one. man, woman. and child talk
ana shout Income Tax till aristocracv
VINO has stolen, virtually stolen. colossal
nllilons evadins taxes, and by other
means, from the people-from vou-
peaF their Just portion of the taxes.
Let every voter write a personal letter
10 each legislator urging him to vote for
the adoption of this amendment to the
constitution of the United States of
America