September 4, 1891.] 



SCIENCE. 



129 



amount would be so slight that it would not be worth while 

 complaining about it. Even such a sum as a hundred mil- 

 lion a year could be raised very easily by almost any system 

 of taxation. But when you want to raise seven hundred 

 millions it is a very different matter. A system of taxation 

 ■which would yield a small sum becomes absolutely insup- 

 portable when you attempt to raise a large sum by it. 



There are some theorists, it is true, who maintain that all the 

 revenues necessary for public purposes could be raised easily 

 by a land tax, or by an income tax, or by an excise tax. 

 Such people have given little study to the organic nature of 

 the State. In determining how much of a burden an organic 

 body can bear, you must consider not only the weight itself 

 but also its distribution. Take a soldier, for example. 

 Would you measure the burden which he could carry in the 

 field by the amount he could drag in the shape of an iron 

 hall attached to one of his feet, or the amount he could carry 

 in one hand, or suspended from one finger ? Of course not. 

 Every one recognizes that a load which would tire a man out 

 completely in a few hours if placed on one part of the body 

 can be carried for an indefinite period if only it be properly 

 distributed. So with taxation. Any single tax presses down 

 and destroys or tends to destroy some one part of the eco- 

 nomic body. Increase it and you not only destroy that part 

 but, by sympathy, the whole body economic. Given a sys- 

 tem of taxation then, which will yield a certain revenue 

 easily without injuring any part of the body economic, if 

 you double the amount to be raised, you will in all proba- 

 bility make the system absolutely insupportable. 



Now this is exactly what we have done in this country. 

 "We have in essence the same system of taxation which was 

 in vogue a hundred years ago. Indeed we may say that in 

 all its most important features it is the same as was adopted 

 in England in the time of Queen Elizabeth, for our ancestors 

 brought it with them and adopted it almost without change 

 when they settled the covmtry. In the mean time our in- 

 dustry has changed, our agriculture has changed, we have 

 changed our style of dress. We wear different hats, a better 

 boot and shoe; we drive a better horse, milk a better cow, 

 fatten a better hog, have invented a new plough, invented 

 and utilized the railroad, steamboat, mowing machine, reaper, 

 self-binder, etc., but we stick to an antiquated system of taxa- 

 tion which was not very good at the time it was adopted and 

 has become worse ever since. If we were willing to abolish 

 the public school system entirely, give up trying to improve 

 the roads, starve the inmates of our jails and alms-liouses, 

 tie up our insane to a post until they die of starvation and 

 neglect, go back to the fourteenth century system of sanita- 

 tion, abolish universal sufi^rage, and set up a class of nobles 

 and kings to rule over us, perhaps we could get money 

 «nough out of the community to serve such public purposes 

 as would then be necessary by the system of taxation which 

 we now have. I take it, however, that we are not going to 

 do any of these things. On the contrary, we propose to have 

 better schools, better roads, take better care of our poor, be 

 more reasonable in our treatment of the insane and criminal 

 ■classes, establish better conditions of public health, do more 

 to develop our industries, — in a word, we propose to advance 

 and not decline in civilization. All this will require more 

 money than we have now, and a system of public revenue 

 must be established which will not only enable us to raise 

 the sums at pi-esent demanded but very mucli larger sums, 

 and at a less cost of effort. 



Think for a moment how enormously the expenditure for 

 public purposes has increased of late years in all civilized 



countries. The ordinary expenditures of the Federal Gov- 

 ernment for the decade 1791-1800 were about four millions 

 of dollars. For the decade 1870-1879 it was more than forty 

 times as much, while tlie population was only about twelve 

 times as great. In the State of New York the amount raised 

 by taxation rose from twenty millions in 1861 to fifty millions 

 in 1870; in Massachusetts, from eight to twenty-two millions 

 in the same period approximately ; and in Ohio, from eleven 

 to twenty-two. In the fifteen years from 1860 to 187.5 the 

 total amount raised by taxation rose in Baltimore by 110 per 

 cent; in Boston, 241; Brooklyn, .31.3; Chicago, 1445; Cincin- 

 nati, 377; Detroit, 384; Louisville, 318; Milwaukee, 326; 

 Newark, 558; New York, 430; Philadelphia, 317, etc. For 

 fourteen large cities the amount of increase was 363 per cent, 

 while the population increased only seventy per cent. Now 

 it is plain that a tax system which might have been at least 

 bearable in 1860 was in all probability out of all reason in 

 1875, when nearly four times the revenue had to be raised 

 by it. 



Taking all the cities in Massachusetts, they paid six dollars 

 per head in taxes in 1861 and over seventeen dollars in 1875. 

 The city debts had increased from less than eight dollars per 

 head to over fifty-four per head. Even if we lake the period 

 after the war, from 1866 to 1876, and take the average of 130 

 cities in the United States, including therefore the' smaller 

 ones also, it will be seen that the taxes rose from sixty-four 

 to one hundred and thirteen million dollars. They have not 

 declined since, but have all risen at least as rapidly as the 

 population. 



This phenomenon is not by any means confined to our 

 own country but is quite as noticeable abroad. The expenses 

 of Vienna rose from thirty-seven to sixty-seven million francs 

 in the years from 1865 to 1874, Breslau from four to eight, 

 Florence from nine to twenty-four, Berlin from eighteen to 

 forty-six. Paris rose from eighty-three to one hundred 

 and ninety -six million francs in ten years. Thirty-two cities- 

 of Prussia increased their taxes eighty-three percent in seven 

 years. 



A moment's reflection will convince any of you of the 

 enormous increase in this burden, even if you did not have 

 these figures. 



You all know that the expense for schools has become 

 enormously greater than formerly. Every country district 

 must now have its school taught from five to six months in 

 the year by a teacher who gets on the average nearly twice 

 as much as two generations ago. Every little village must 

 have its system of graded schools, and if it gets a trifle larger, 

 must have its high school. We are now calling for manual 

 training in the schools, and we are no longer satisfied with 

 the horrible accommodations for teacher and pupils which 

 used to satisfy our fathers. Our poor-houses must be at least 

 half-way decent places, our jails are vastly improved, etc. 

 In a word, our expenditures are vastly greater, and conse- 

 quently the sum of money to be raised by taxation. As a 

 result the revenue system has broken down, and there are 

 loud calls for a better one. 



Now in deciding upon a system of public revenue, two 

 things are to be kept in vieiv. We must first of all find out 

 where the wealth is that we wish to I'each, and second, we 

 must then adopt the best system we can devise to find and 

 tax that wealth. There is no use of adopting specific taxes 

 unless there is something to be taxed. 



Now here is just the difficulty in our present condition. 

 Our tax system does not correspond to our industrial condi- 

 tions. It was devised in all its essential features over three 



