_Question_. What is your opinion of the result of the election?
_Answer_. I find many dead on the field whose faces I recognize.
I see that Morrison has taken a "horizontal" position. Free trade
seems to have received an exceedingly black eye. Carlisle, in my
judgment, one of the very best men in Congress, has been defeated
simply because he is a free trader, and I suppose you can account
for Hurd's defeat in the same way. The people believe in protection
although they generally admit that the tariff ought to be reformed.
I believe in protecting "infant industries," but I do not believe
in rocking the cradle when the infant is seven feet high and wears
number twelve boots.
_Question_. Do you sympathize with the Socialists, or do you think
that the success of George would promote socialism?
_Answer_. I have said frequently that if I lived in Russia I should
in all probability be a Nihilist. I can conceive of no government
that would not be as good as that of Russia, and I would consider
_no_ government far preferable to that government. Any possible
state of anarchy is better than organized crime, because in the
chaos of anarchy justice may be done by accident, but in a government
organized for the perpetuation of slavery, and for the purpose of
crushing out of the human brain every noble thought, justice does
not live. In Germany I would probably be a Socialist--to this
extent, that I would want the political power honestly divided
among the people. I can conceive of no circumstance in which I
could support Bismarck. I regard Bismarck as a projection of the
Middle Ages, as a shadow that has been thrown across the sunlight
of modern civilization, and in that shadow grow all the bloodless
crimes. Now, in Ireland, of course, I believe in home rule. In
this country I am an Individualist. The political power here is
equally divided. Poverty and wealth have the same power at the
ballot-box. Intelligence and ignorance are on an equality here,
simply because all men have a certain interest in the government
where they live. I hate above all other things the tyranny of a
government. I do not want a government to send a policeman along
with me to keep me from buying eleven eggs for a dozen. I will
take care of myself. I want the people to do everything they can
do, and the Government to keep its hands off, because if the
Government attends to all these matters the people lose manhood,
and in a little while become serfs, and there will arise some strong
mind and some powerful hand that will reduce them to actual slavery.
So I am in favor or personal liberty to the largest extent. Whenever
the Government grants privileges to the few, these privileges should
be for the benefit of the many, and when they cease to be for the
benefit of the many, they should be taken from the few and used by
the government itself for the benefit of the whole people. And I
want to see in this country the Government so administered that
justice will be done to all as nearly as human institutions can
produce such a result. Now, I understand that in any state of
society there will be failures. We have failures among the working
people. We have had some failures in Congress. I will not mention
the names, because your space is limited. There have been failures
in the pulpit, at the bar; in fact, in every pursuit of life you
will presume we shall have failures with us for a great while; at
least until the establishment of the religion of the body, when we
shall cease to produce failures; and I have faith enough in the
human race to believe that that time will come, but I do not expect
it during my life.
_Question_. What do you think of the income tax as a step toward
the accomplishment of what you desire?
_Answer_. There are some objections to an income tax. First, the
espionage that it produces on the part of the Government. Second,
the amount of perjury that it annually produces. Men hate to have
their business inquired into if they are not doing well. They
often pay a very large tax to make their creditors think they are
prosperous. Others by covering up, avoid the tax. But I will say
this with regard to taxation: The great desideratum is stability.
If we tax only the land, and that were the only tax, in a little
while every other thing, and the value of every other thing, would
adjust itself in relation to that tax, and perfect justice would
be the result. That is to say, if it were stable long enough the
burden would finally fall upon the right backs in every department.
The trouble with taxation is that it is continually changing--not
waiting for the adjustment that will naturally follow provided it
is stable. I think the end, so far as land is concerned, could be
reached by cumulative taxation--that is to say, a man with a certain
amount of land paying a very small per cent., with more land, and
increased per cent., and let that per cent. increase rapidly enough
so that no man could afford to hold land that he did not have a
use for. So I believe in cumulative taxation in regard to any kind
of wealth. Let a man worth ten million dollars pay a greater per
cent. than one worth one hundred thousand, because he is able to
pay it. The other day a man was talking to me about having the
dead pay the expenses of the Government; that whenever a man died
worth say five million dollars, one million should go to the
Government; that if he died worth ten million dollars, three millions
should go to the Government; if he died worth twenty million dollars,
eight million should go to the Government, and so on. He said that
in this way the expenses of the Government could be borne by the
dead. I should be in favor of cumulative taxation upon legacies--
the greater the legacy, the greater the per cent. of taxation.
But, of course, I am not foolish enough to suppose that I understand
these questions. I am giving you a few guesses. My only desire
is to guess right. I want to see the people of this world live
for this world, and I hope the time will come when a civilized man
will understand that he cannot be perfectly happy while anybody
else is miserable; that a perfectly civilized man could not enjoy
a dinner knowing that others were starving; that he could not enjoy
the richest robes if he knew that some of his fellow-men in rags
and tatters were shivering in the blast. In other words, I want
to carry out the idea there that I have so frequently uttered with
regard to the other world; that is, that no gentleman angel could
be perfectly happy knowing that somebody else was in hell.
_Question_. What are the chances for the Republican party in 1888?
_Answer_. If it will sympathize with the toilers, as it did with
the slaves; if it will side with the needy; if it will only take
the right side it will elect the next President. The poor should
not resort to violence; the rich should appeal to the intelligence
of the working people. These questions cannot be settled by envy
and scorn. The motto of both parties should be: "Come, let us
reason together." The Republican party was the grandest organization
that ever existed. It was brave, intelligent and just. It sincerely
loved the right. A certificate of membership was a patent of
nobility. If it will only stand by the right again, its victorious
banner will float over all the intelligent sons of toil.
--_The Times_, Chicago, Illinois, November 4, 1886.