Atlanta tri-weekly journal. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1920-19??, 1924-06-26

the highly favored few, and the more
demanded from the less -faVoreo
many, the greater the good to the
common country. The champions OF
the proposal believe that prosperity
should come from the crumbs that
fall from the tables Of the rich; tnal
if you legislate solely to make the
well-to-do prosperous their prospect
ty will .seep through upon those be
low. The Republican party is the
ancient enemy of the income tax
1t is contrary to reactionary Repub
lican doctrine and inimical to Re
publican practices. The inome tau
was never intended to touch power
ty. 1t eXacts no settlements from
bankrupt courts - forecloses nc
mortga ges and forces no sales. 1T
is collected only where prosperity
smiles and earnings abound. AS d
means of raising revenue it is one
of our party's priceless iegacies, and
as such 1t shall be neither weakened
nor destroyed.
When the president and his sec
rotary of the treasury, with all the
hosts of selfish interests, charged
on the battle front of the American
congress in behalf of the Mellon plan
democracy and progressive republi-
canism stood firm. 1t was the same
ancient contest, and for the same
old cause. Under the leadership of
Simmons in the senate and Garner
in the house we triumphed, not be-
cause we were numerically strong,
but because we were assuredly right.
Through the democratic law every
taxpayer in America will get a %
per cent reduction this year.
Every person who pays an income
tax will be required to pay less in
the future than in the past. And this
Democratic legislation, against
which all the agencies of this admin
istration have inveighed, will give
a greater reduction in taxes than
would have the Mellon plan to every
person whose annual income
amounts to less than $67 900 an
nually.
Out Of the total of 3,5S5,9S5 in
come-tax payers in America $780,
5S5 will receive a greater reduction
in the Democratic plan than they
would have received under the Mel
Ion plan.
In the reduction of taxes the Dem
ocratic party sought greater reduc,
tons and broader eliminations than
did the Republican nominee or the
secretary of the treasury. In the adj
ministra TONS mad efforts to fore
stall democracy's desire to effect
greater reductions than those rec
commended by the administration the
treasury department juggled figures
and deceived the public.
The administration said that the
treasury department would only
stand for reduction of $500 900, 900.
The Democratic party gave them a
reduction of $470,000, 900.
Said Taxes Must Go
The administration said that the
tax on candies, checks, notes, auto
drafts and soft drinks should re-
main. The Democratic party said
those taxes must go.
The administration said that if we
would increase taxes on $3.50 ,5S5 in
come-taX payers and reduce the
taxes on $500, it would release
money for productive enterprises and
increase the prosperity of all. The
Democratic party answered that in
dubitable facts refuted such an ar
Sument.
1t was not reasoning they sought
nor facts they desired, but more
special privileges to- the; favored
few they craved.
" 1000 Of
sets listed for estate taxes, there
was not found enough taX-free Sc
curities to cover funeral expenses
For the year 1921 the total net in
come returns from business amount
ed to $2,3G6, 31S, GOO, and only SAL
600, 900 of this amount was returned
by individuals whose incomes were
in excess of $4,000 annually. The
Democratic plan for reducing all
taxes, hut reducing them eluita blv
on the theory of ability to pay, will
result in releasing more money for
investments in productive enter.
prises than would have the Mellon
plan.
The Republican nominee in re-
luctantly signing the measure de.
lt-L VI LII LIS llIlIllSulCllC IGlOlDl.
What does he mean by reform? Does
he propose to change the law by
transferring the burdens carried by
5,400 whose backs are broad to the
three and one-half millions whose
backs are bowed? Does he propose
to make up the reduction on the
.. 400 favored few by resurrecting
the many nuisance taxes on the un-
favored many? Is that his challenge?
Then we accept it.
With the promises of the 1926
campaign to reduce the cost OF liV
ing reSOunding in our ears, the
country beheld in the passage of THE
Fordney- MCCumber tariff law the
most fragrant reputation of cam
paiSn pledges in all the history OF
political parties. 1t was a law thai
reelled with special favors Every
line in it added to the living costs
of the American consumer. Wher
the iniquitouS Schedule * of the
PaVne-Aldrich law was enacted, car
rying an 11-cent duty a pound or
raw wool, the whole country was
aroused and drove the Taft admin
istration from power. The defear
was decisive. Utah and Vernon,
We're the sole Republican survivors
But this same reactionary group
under the inspiration of representa-
tives of these twin states, ignored
the facts of recent history and fas
tened upon the American people 6
tariff rate on raw wool of 81 cents {
pound. Tariff rates on counties:
other things were proportionatelS
increased, Nothing escaped theil
deadly aim. In the framing of the
law the time-honored Republican
theory Of equalizing the differenc,
in cost at home and abroad was no
considered. The only question ask
ed. How much protection do yo,
want? The so-called representative.
of the people surrendered complete
| ~ to the representa- tives of the pred
atory interests and playe, will
their masters the game of tit fo1
tat" 10 the betrayal of the Ameri
can consumer and the replenish
d