128 



SCIENCE 



[Vol. XVIII. No. 448 



scription both to magnify it and to indicate that its proper 

 position is that of a preliminary phase in the study of sys- 

 tematic botany." 



The work of searching for the affinities of great groups is 

 the crying need of systematic botany to-day. The speaker 

 called attention to the danger of magnifying the importance 

 of certain periods or organs in indicating affinities, and 

 summed up what was said under this head as follows: "I 

 have thus spoken of the study of life-histories to indicate 

 that its chief function lies in the field of systematic botany; 

 to suggest that it take into account development at every 

 period and of every organ, and so obtain a mass of cumula- 

 tive evidence for safe generalization, and to urge upon those 

 not thoroughly equipped great caution in publication." 



The speaker spoke of the necessity of constructing a natu- 

 ral system with easy advance in the knowledge of affinities, 

 as a convenient summary of information, a sort of mile-post, 

 to tell of progress and to direct future effort. The concluding 

 summary was as follows: "The points presented in this con- 

 sideration of the third phase of systematic botany are that 

 the last and highest expression of systematic work is the con- 

 struction of a natural system, based upon the accumulations 

 of those who collect and describe, and those who study life 

 histories; that this work involves the completest command of 

 literature and the highest powers of generalization ; that it is 

 essential to progress for a natural system to be attempted 

 with every advance in knowledge, and that all the known 

 facts of affinity, thus brought within reach, should be ex- 

 pressed in all systematic literature. In conclusion, I have 

 but to say that I have attempted to indicate the true relation 

 which exists among the different phases of systematic botany; 

 to point out an affinity which there is danger of ignoring, and 

 to maintain that all these departments of work, looking to the 

 same end, are equally impoi-tant, equally honorable." 



THE FAEMER AND TAXATION.' 



Questions of taxation have played a prominent part in the 

 polity of English-speaking communities for many centuries, 

 and they have not been without importance in the history 

 of other civilized countries as well. A history of English 

 taxation would be in no small part a history of the English 

 people itself. 



It was a quarrel about taxation between the nobles and 

 King John which led to the granting of the Great Charter, 

 and thus planted the seeds of modern constitutional govern- 

 ment. English liberty indeed has been developed chiefly in 

 connection with disputes about taxation. Charles I. owed 

 the loss of his throne and of his head largely to his deter- 

 mination to levy such taxes as he pleased without consulting 

 the great men of his realm. English obstinacy in regard to 

 the principle of taxing the colonies led to the American Revo- 

 lution and the disruption of the British Empire. It was at 

 bottom a question of taxation which led to the French Revo- 

 lution, and the turning and overturning of Europe which 

 has hardly ceased even now. And the history of this cen- 

 tury on the continent shows how fundamental tax questions 

 are to the welfare and prosperity of modern nations. 



Of late the question has become of even more importance, 

 and has acquired a very different aspect from that of former 

 centuries. The disputes about taxation were, down to a re- 

 cent date, largely of a political nature. They turned, not so 

 much on the amount of the tax or the manner in which it 



1 Address before the Section of Ecouomic Science and Statistics of the 

 American Association for the Advancement of Science, at Washington, B.C., 

 Auk. VJ--2o, 1891, by Edmund J. James, vice-president of the section. 



should be levied, as upon the point who should say whether 

 it should be levied at all or not. The rulers or ruling classes 

 tried to keep the whole question within their own control, 

 and those who were opposed to this were trying to get the 

 right to vote or refuse taxes. Now every civilized country 

 in western Europe and America vests the right to say what 

 taxes should be levied, and how they shall be levied, in the 

 people or their representatives. It is accepted as a definite 

 principle that the people are the sole source of the authority to 

 determine what taxes should be levied. 



We have indeed always had that principle accepted in this 

 country, to a greater or less extent, and in all its fulness, 

 ever since the Revolution. People thought formerly that as 

 soon as that principle was accepted tax problems would be 

 solved. But it did not take long to find out how great an 

 error this notion was. Hardly had the principle been ac- 

 cepted as a part of the fundamental law of the country when 

 the representatives of the people found out that they were 

 only at the verge, so to speak, of the question. The political 

 side of the problem had been settled to a certain extent, but 

 that only left room for the economic aspect to appear in 

 sight, with a vast array of the most difficult questions. It 

 soon became evident that under the systems of taxation in 

 existence some people paid more than they ought to, and 

 some paid less. Some classes were taxed but lightly or not 

 at all and others very heavily. Then began the fight between 

 the classes, between those exempted by law and those sub- 

 jected by law to taxation. This conflict was slowly fought 

 through, and now in nearly all civilized countries there are 

 few classes exempted by law from taxation. But it was soon 

 found that it was not necessary to exempt by law in order 

 to take advantage of circumstances in such a way as to mate- 

 rially lighten one's burdens. Then began another struggle 

 between the various classes as to which could shift the burden 

 of taxation more completely, under the forms of law, to the 

 shoulders of the other. The town was arrayed against the 

 country, the producer against the consumer, the rich against 

 the poor, the laborer against the capitalist, etc. We are still 

 in the thick of this fight, and there is no sign of an end to 

 it. , It is raging in all countries alike. Our tax problems 

 are not very different in some of their most important features 

 from the tax problems of England, Prance, and Germany, 

 and each of these countries can learn something from the 

 experience, the successes and failures, of the others. 



The problem is all the more difficult because, even if all 

 parties were willing to do exactly the fair thing, we should 

 still find it difficult to determine exactly what the fair thing 

 is. Where you cannot obtain common consent as to what is 

 fair and proper, we need not expect that private individuals 

 will relax their efforts to get exemptions, and make laws un- 

 der which they can escape what others may consider their 

 fair share of taxation. 



The matter is destined to become more rather than less 

 important, and that from several reasons. In the first place 

 the amount of money to be raised by taxation is destined to 

 increase pretty steadily, if not very rapidly. This fact, of 

 course, makes a bad system of taxation become worse with 

 every increase of the amount. If, for example, we had in 

 this country to raise only a small sum for public purposes, 

 say ten million dollars in all, for federal, state, and local 

 governments, it would not matter much how we r;iised it. 

 We might have an income tax on all incomes over ten thou- 

 sand dollars a year, or on all incomes of less than that, or a 

 uniform tax on lauds irrespective of their value, or even on 

 polls; and while it might be very unequal, yet the whole 



