The Barre daily times. (Barre, Vt.) 1897-1959, 1910-10-25

vanced directly in favor of the retention
4 OF this rule, but indirectly against the
proposed amendment, we will only pause
to notice a few of these indirect argu.
ments. Mr.. Choate, in his argument
against the law of 1894, gives one Of
them. Recalling the income tax law
that was in force in 1873 and that ex.
empted all incomes below 100000, he
says: "ln that year the collections for
that tax were such in the states Of New
York, Massachusetts,, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey, that even with that eNemp-
/ tion, those four states paid four-ifths
Of the tax. What is their political rep.
resentation in the lower house of Con.
gress, which only can initiate and secure
the passage Of revenue bills Eighty
three out of l56, or a little less than
one-fourth." He then points out the
probability that these four states, under
the law of 1894, which exempted incomes
below 100000, would pay even a great
er proportion of the tax than under the
law OF 1873. His argument, if sound
would upset the whole theory of our rep
resentative system. If applied, we should
have TO apportion our representation &C.
cording to property and not according
to population. We should have to put
the dollar above the man. We should
have to 90 back to the antiquated sys-
tenn Of the old world, under whose I'M
Just burdens man has struggled for so
many centuries, back perhaps to the
days when unrepresented peasants had
TO eat grass, while representative prop
erty enjoyed its exemptions If Mr..
Choate could have shown that the in
come receivers of those four states had
paid one dollar more than their ability
warranted as compared with their less
fortunate fellow citizens in other states,
his argument would have been perth
nent. This he did not do, and in my
opinion he could not do. The facts were
against him,
For what does il matter to say that
a man worth ten thousand dollars had
paid ten times as much as a man worth
only one thousand dollars, though each
Of them had but a single vote What
does ii matter to say that four states
paid four-ifths of the income tax, if
they had four-iifths of the income above
the reasonable limit Of $2,00000g They
can enjoy with their poorer neighbors
100000 Of their income without taxa
ton and still have an advantage for
enjoyment of 9s per cent. OF their in
come above that amount Let us figure
out a supposed case. One man receives
an income of 100000 and another an
income of 100000 Up to S2,00006
neither pays tax, but one pays a tax
Of 100000 on the excess OF on IS, 10000,
which at per cent. amounts to $4,000
What IL the result? One has his two
thousand dollars and the other has
S0.s4000 after deducting the tax OF
$4,000 This leaves one with more
than four times as many dollars as the
other has for the pursuit of "life, lib
ertv and happiness" Is this unjust and
should we be called upon to shed tears
Of pity for man so taxed according to
his ability and for his sake to per
petrate the unjust rule Of apportionment
for his benefit? Mr.. Choate did not
pause to show the other side of the ques-
ton as it touched these four states. He
did not tell us that these four sister
states sit at the toll gates of a nations
commerce. He did not tell us that the
other states contributed to swell the
princely income on which the tax was
levied The profits on the shoes of Mas
saehusetts, on the fabrics of New Jer-
sew, on the iron of Pennsylvania, on the
products of all the seas that pass through
the port of New York flow back from
every part Of the union into these great
financial centers The return 10 the ma
ton az large through any income tax
that has ever been laid or that ever
will be laid is mere bagatelle in com
parison with the receipts.
The distinguished gentleman, TO whom
we have proudly given a reelection rs
a senator of the United States, has ad-
yised us, although he comedies the justice
Of an income tax, 10 reject the proposed
amendment. He fears the expense of
projects for canals, reclamation, irriga-
ton. conservation, etc, and reminds ms
that the money from such a tax would
not necessarily be expended within the
state boundaries within which it was
collected This is taking a narrow view
Of the matter If an expenditure is a
national benefit, il should be made at
the point Of need. even though that
point lies outside Of certain states or
even national boundaries. And Is 1t no
benefit to Vermont that our harbors
should be improved, that our deserts
should blossom as the rose, that our
rivers should bear a continental trade,
that the two oceans between which our
country lies should be united, aud that
our navy should have a strength appor-
toned TO that Of any possible aggressorr
We sometimes read the words Of our
elder statesmen, who teach Us that we