New-York tribune., 1918-01-27
.Conscription of
Wealth From Eng
lands Viewpoint
voNsCRlPT1ON of wealth means

many things to many persons. AS
slogan, of way to finance the
war, pay off the great national debts and
settle things generally it would probably
be hard to get two definitions alike.
1t rs heard everywhere on the street and
in the press. To the unthinking masses the
epigram "fou conscript mems bodies, why
not their money!" has a great appeal.
Amos Pinchot and Senator Robert M. La
Toilette seem to think conscription of
wealth is making taxes so heavy that all
war expenses are Immediately defrayed
out of them; and this, they argue. would
put the burden of war on the wealthy and
solve the difficulties of the poor
The interpretations of this widely popu-
lar phrase run the whole gamut, from the
economically uninformcd, who think going
into the banks and taking out all the
money needed would give the nation all the
goods 1t wants, to the men with detailed
plans for making the government a part
ner and sharer in the proceeds of every
enterprise
Conscripton Of wealth in one form or
another is being urged on every beligerent
nation. IL is worldwide problem. Un-
doubtedly the next few weeks will see a
great newspaper discussion of this and
allied questions, for the new Congress al
ready has before it the bill of Senator
Reed Smoot, of Utah, to recast the war
revenue act, while other measures of like
purpose are impending
Great Britain is like the United States
III having a great {if not as large) num-
Der of vast fortunes. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer has dipped into these
deeper. and deeper as the war has pro-
gressed Probably the limit of his reach
has not been seen. But the British radi-
Gals cry this is not enough "Conscript
wealth." is the cry. "Take part or all of
the capital instead of stopping with in
comet
Theodore Cooke Taylor, K. c., M. P,
in the December number of "The Fort
nightly Review" analyses the various
wealth conscription proposals in England
In way which must have great interest
for Americans. He shows that unlimited
money will do the government no good
it must buy actual things with them.
Real wealth-food, clothing, guns, ships,
shells, railway materials what is needed
to win the war and no amount of credit, !
gold, or banknotes will take its place.
These things he calls ,,"real income"
AS to the real capital, which is rail- !
roads, houses, useful property, mills, ma
chimes and tools, the government cannot
consume them. 1t wants their products,
and these alone. So, in one sense, con-
scription Of capital is impossihle The |
only way it could be interpreted into
fact would be by an insensate destruction
of tools, buildings and other means of
production. But the writer declares:
at would be affectation to deny that, for
many years past, the death duties (inher- .
tance taxes) have effected conscrption of
capital on a considerable scale, and that the
graduated income tax and super-tax form
together a substantial conscription of the
wealth of rich people"
Additional taxation in the shape Of
higher income rates in the course of the
war, ne continues, has stimulated efforts
to secure additional income wherewith to
pay it. Then he sets forth some of the
grave menaces of the actual conscription
OF wealth in the following fashion:
"rhe same result Stimulation of earning
activity could not follow conscrption of
capital in the owners lifetime When we are
asked to contscate 10 or 20 per cent of a
living mans capital, whether in goods ma
chlnery, buildings, shares or debentures, we |
are up against vastly different proposition,
one which, if attempted to be carried out. !
might bring down the fabric Of British credit
with q crash. No one has a right to plav |
with our national creoit 1t is a factor abso-
lutely necessary for winning the war. Already |
the mere talk In irresponsible quarters of |
contscation of capital in a mans lifetime is
having bad effect upon the sale Of national |
war bonds. No more insidiously pro-German
and alti-Britlsh campaign could be waged
than to spread the notion that any British |
government would confiscate living mans |
capital.
What would be the effect of any wide
spread suspicion that the British governments
at the very time it sought to borrow a mans !
money, were contemplating the confiscation
OF his capital? There could be no guarantee |
OF course, to when one 10 per cent scani
tai tax would not be followed bv another
and another. Would that kind of thing se-
cure larger voluntary lending to the govern
ment OF the money 1t needs? Would it be |
calculated to dispose the United States "a
keep lending US their money? Would it en-
courage our solvent allies, who have bor |
rowed so largely from u.s. to pav back what
they owe as soon as they arc able? Wou1d
IL be good example for our own dominionsp
surely such scheme would be bad policy.
II not worse: But it would be impractcablc
. also "
You cannot feed soldiers upon fields and
barns. You cannot clothe them with cotton
oushes' s.sep hocks, spinning mills. looms
and sowing machines. You cannot arm them
with blast furnaces and machine shnn. o.