Reverting now to the subject of the conscription of men, I know I
speak the sentiment of all those beyond the years of young manhood
when I say that there is not one of us worthy of the name of a man who
would not willingly go to fight if the country needed or wanted us to
fight. But the country does not want or call its entire manhood to
fight. It does not even call anywhere near its entire young manhood.
It has called, or intends to call in the immediate future, perhaps 25
per cent. of its men between 20 and 30 years of age, which means
probably about 4 per cent. of its total male population of all ages.
In other words, it calls only for such number of men as appears
indicated by the needs of the country, and as corresponds to a prudent
estimate of the task before it.
I am far from meaning to compare the loss of income or profits with
the risk of life or health to which men in the firing line are
exposed, or to compare financial sacrifices to those willingly and
proudly borne by the youth of our land and shared by those near and
dear to them. But I do believe it to be a just contention--not in the
interest of the individual, but of the welfare of the community--that
the same principle which is applied in the case of the conscription
of men should hold good for the conscription of income or profits;
_i. e._ so much thereof should be taken by the State as is required
by a prudent estimate of the task before it and as best promotes the
accomplishment of that task, bearing in mind that the preservation
of the country's economic power is next in importance for winning the
war to its military power. Vindictiveness, extremist theories and
demagogism ought to have no place in arriving at that estimate.
I have no patience with or tolerance for the "war profiteer," as the
term is understood. The "war hog" is a nuisance and an ignominy. He
should be dealt with just as drastically as is possible without doing
damage to national interests in the process. But neither have I
patience with or tolerance for the man who would use his country's war
as a means to promote his pet theories or his political fortunes at
the expense of national unity at a time when we should all be united
in mutual goodwill and co-operative effort.
And if we do talk about the formula, "conscription of
men--conscription of wealth," let it be understood that we have called
less than 5 per cent. of the Nation's entire male population, but
have called from incomes, business profits and other imposts falling
principally on the well-to-do, approximately 90 per cent. of our war
taxation, not to mention the contribution to the Red Cross, the
Y.M.C.A. and other war relief activities.
Let me add in passing that _the children of the well-to-do have been
taken for the war in proportionately greater numbers than the children
of the poor_, because those young men who are needed at home to
support dependents or to maintain essential war industries are
exempted from the draft.
Moreover, to an overwhelming degree the sons of the well-to-do have
not waited to be conscripted. They have volunteered in masses--a far
greater percentage of them than those in less advantageous
circumstances. That is merely as it should be. Having greater
advantages, they have corresponding duties. Not having dependents to
take care of, they can better afford to volunteer than those less
fortunately situated.
But the patriotic zeal of the sons of the well-to-do in coming
forward to offer their lives to the country does give a doubly false
and sickening sound to the ranting of the agitator who would arouse
class hatred--who calls this "a rich man's war and a poor man's fight"
when an overwhelming percentage of the sons of the men of means have
eagerly and freely offered themselves for military service, when _the
draft exemption regulations, discriminate not, as in former wars, in
favour of the rich man's son but in favour of the poor woman's son_,
and when capital and business pay more than four-fifths of our war
taxation directly and a large share of the remaining one-fifth
indirectly.
I do not say all this to plead for a reduction of the taxation on
wealth, or in order to urge that no additional taxes be imposed on
wealth if need be. There is no limit to the burden which, in time of
stress and strain, those must be willing to bear who can afford it,
except only that limit which is imposed by the consideration that
taxation must not reach a point where the business activity of the
country becomes crippled, and its economic equilibrium is thrown out
of gear, because that would harm every element of the commonwealth and
diminish the war-making capacity of the Nation.
V
The question of the individual is not the one that counts. The
question is not what sacrifices capital should and would be willing to
bear if called upon, but what taxes it is _to the public advantage_ to
impose.
Taxation must be sound and wise and scientific, and cannot be laid in
a haphazard way or on impulse or according to considerations of
politics. Otherwise, the whole country will suffer. History has shown
over and over again that the laws of economics cannot be defied with
impunity and that the resulting penalty falls upon all sections and
classes.
I realize but too well that the burden of the abnormally high cost of
living, caused largely by the war, weighs heavily indeed upon wage
earners and still more upon men and women with moderate salaries. I
yield to no one in my desire to see everything done that is
practicable to have that burden lightened. But excessive taxation on
capital will not accomplish that; on the contrary, it will rather tend
to intensify the trouble.
We men of business are ready and willing to be taxed in this emergency
to the very limit of our ability, and to make contributions to war
relief work and other good causes, without stint. The fact is that,
generally speaking, capital engaged in business is now being taxed in
America more heavily than anywhere else in the world. We are not
complaining about this; we do not say that it may not become necessary
to impose still further taxes; we are not whimpering and squealing and
agitating, but--we do want the people to know what are the present
facts, and we ask them not to give heed to the demagogue who would
make them believe that we are escaping our share of the common
burden.
May I hope that I have measurably succeeded in demonstrating that the
allegations with which the propagandists of disunion have been
assailing the public mind are without foundation in fact. And may I
add, in conclusion, that the charge of "big business" having fomented
our entrance into the war is one which, apart from its intrinsic
absurdity, is a hateful calumny. Business men, great or small, are no
different from other Americans, and we reject the thought that any
American, rich or poor, would be capable of the hideous and dastardly
plot to bring upon his country the sorrows and sufferings of war in
order to enrich himself.
Business men are bound to be exceedingly heavy financial losers
through America's entrance into the war. Every element of
self-interest should have caused them to use their utmost efforts to
preserve America's neutrality from which they drew so much profit
during the two and a half years before April, 1917. Every
consideration of personal advantage commanded men of affairs to stand
with and support the agitation of the "peace-at-any-price" party. They
spurned such ignoble reasoning; they rejected that affiliation; they
stood for war when it was no longer possible, with safety and honour,
to maintain peace, because they are patriotic citizens first and
business men afterwards.
The insinuation that "big business" had any share in influencing our
Government's decision to enter the war is an insult to the President
and Congress, a libel on American citizenship, and a malicious
perversion or ignorant misconception of the facts. Those who continue
to circulate that insinuation lay themselves open to just suspicion of
their motives and should receive neither credence nor tolerance.