_There appears to prevail amongst not a few people the strange delusion
that America's entrance into the war was fomented by moneyed men, in
part, at least, from the motive and for the purpose of gain._
_Were there any such men, no public condemnation of them could be too
severe, no punishment would be adequate. I am absolutely certain that
no such hideous and dastardly calculation found lodgment in the brain
of any American, rich or poor._
Moreover, is it not perfectly manifest that any rich man in his senses
must have known that his selfish interest was best promoted by the
continuance of the conditions of the last three years in which America
furnished funds and supplies to Europe at huge profits, whilst our
entering the war was bound to diminish those profits very largely
(indeed, to entirely eliminate some of them), to interfere with
business activity in many lines and to compel the imposition of heavy
taxes on wealth?
It is to the credit of our rich men that, though fully realizing the
extent of the monetary loss and sacrifices which war between this
country and Germany must necessarily bring to them, there were but very
few of them who supported the Peace-at-any-Price Party or favored the
avoidance of America entering into the war when it had become plain
that our participation in that war could not be avoided with honor and
with due regard for our duty to our own country, or to the cause of
right and liberty throughout the world.
Yet, somehow, the pacifists seem to have singled out the rich as mainly
responsible for the war.
It may be due, consciously or unconsciously, to a resulting feeling of
resentment that _the proposal to confiscate during the war all incomes
beyond a certain figure is actively promoted by leading pacifists_--a
proposal based upon ignorance of, or disregard for, the laws of
economics, teachings of history and practical considerations.
If any such scheme were to be adopted, the consequences to the country
at large would be far more serious than to the victims of the proposed
action.
If such a measure of outright confiscation were seriously apprehended,
at a time moreover and under conditions which are far as yet from
calling for extreme measures, capital would cease to flow in its
accustomed currents and some of it would seek other channels
legitimately open to it.
It would certainly cease flowing into constructive use and would
instead confine itself, to an extent at least, to municipal, state and
federal tax-exempt securities. Enterprise would be seriously hampered
and in some respects brought to a standstill entirely.
Many thousands of workmen would be thrown out of employment. Many
businesses and shops would close.
There would ensue, as a natural consequence and without any conscious
determination, a nation-wide strike of constructive activity and
enterprise in commerce and finance, because men will not look upon it
as a "square deal" if they are to take all the risk and responsibility,
all the hard work and ceaseless strain and care of business effort,
whilst the Government would _needlessly_ take from them an unduly large
share of the fruit of their labor, let alone all of it except an
arbitrarily fixed sum.
I say "needlessly" because, _were it really needed, business men would
willingly sacrifice their entire income for the country's cause._
They would work for patriotism, without any recompense whatever, just
as hard and harder than they do for gain or for ambition, if the
occasion required it.
But, of course, everyone knows that nothing remotely approaching such
drastic taxation is required in this country at this time.
It is absolutely right to proclaim and to enforce by legislation that
no man, as far as it is possible to prevent it, shall make money _out
of a war_ in which his country is engaged, but there is all the
difference in the world between that just and moral doctrine and
between the doctrine that no man shall be permitted to have more than
an arbitrarily fixed income _during_ a war.
If $100,000 or any fixed sum is the limit of what may be permissible
income during war time, why not by and by a lesser sum?
If the principle is once admitted, where will its application stop,
even in time of peace?
Why is not the proposed plan, or anything in the nature of that plan,
simply license for the materially unsuccessful to despoil the
materially successful?
History shows more than one instance where this road inevitably leads
to when once entered upon.
And who are our successful men? The vast majority of them are self-made
men who started at the bottom of the ladder.
It is trite to say that inequality of endowment and therefore
inequality of results in human beings, as well as in inanimate things,
is a law of nature. The capacity for creating, organizing, leading,
etc., in short, the possession of those qualities of brain and
disposition which beget success, is rare.
It is in the interest of the community, whilst carefully guarding and
fostering the rights, the opportunities and the well-being of all of
its members, to give liberal incentives to men possessing those gifts
to put them to active and intensive use. It is hardly open to doubt
that, generally speaking, the work of able men, engaged in serious and
legitimate business (I am not speaking of gamblers and parasites),
whilst naturally benefiting them, benefits the community a great deal
more.
The income of hospitals, orphan asylums, institutions of learning and
of art and many other altruistic enterprises depends largely upon the
voluntary taxation, aggregating a great many millions annually, to
which those men in America who have attained financial success have
always willingly submitted themselves--more so, probably than in any
other country.
Who is to take care of all of those institutions if extreme taxation
compels the rich to cease their contributions?