A STATU OFFICIAL ON EXCESSIVE TAXATION. 657 



avoiding their obligations. Before the enactment of a recent law 

 they did it by watering their stocks and issuing bonds, thus creat- 

 ing an indebtedness equal to their capital. They do it now by 

 incorporating in other States and carrying on business in this State. 

 They do it also by neglecting for a certain time to make the re- 

 ports required by law, and then taking refuge behind the statute 

 of limitations. If the burdens thrust upon them can not be shirked 

 or borne, they fly to other States, where the aggressions of the tax 

 collector are less ruinous. 



To compel officials to do their duty, countless expedients have 

 been invented from time immemorial. In the face of proof moun- 

 tains high that no legislative or administrative device can uproot 

 the selfishness imbedded in human nature or reshape the conduct 

 molded to this immutable fact, social quacks still continue to spawn 

 their schemes to work the miracle. Slight as is Mr. Roberts's sym- 

 pathy with them, he is no exception. As a panacea for the dis- 

 honesty and incompetency of the county treasurers that mismanage 

 court and trust funds, he recommends the substitution of State for 

 local inspection. By a similar application of hocus-pocus, he 

 would transmute the extravagance of the managers of charitable 

 institutions into exemplary economy. Disgusted with the charla- 

 tans in charge of certain duties connected with these institutions 

 requiring special skill and knowledge, he thinks " it would be well 

 to provide a corps of enthusiastic scientists , . . who have more 

 than a pecuniary interest '*' in their work. But another recom- 

 mendation of his is a direct assault on this simple faith in the 

 honor and integrity of specialists. Already many of the depart- 

 ments of the State are in the hands of men supposed to have a spe- 

 cial aptitude and liking for their duties. But Mr. Roberts finds 

 that '' leaving the department to expend the money as it deems 

 best," instead of appropriating it for a specific purpose, " is not in 

 the interest of economy." He says that " it absolutely deprives 

 the Legislature of that judicial scrutiny of the necessity of appro- 

 priations " that " it should always exercise, and leaves to the judg- 

 ment of one what could often be better decided if considered by 

 several." Could a deadlier blow be given to a common theory that 

 under government management we have the same division of labor 

 and the same perfect adjustment of means to ends that we have 

 nnder private management? What legislative body, chosen by uni- 

 versal suffrage, the most perfect instrument ever invented for the 

 selection of incompetents, would enable it to exercise the super- 

 vision over the thousand activities of life that Mr. Roberts rec- 

 ommends? 



The same futile ingenuity exhibited in making officials do their 



VOL. LVI. — 53 



