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% of its men between
20 and 30 years of age, which means probably about 4% 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 on 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 nor 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 good will 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% 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% 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 favor of
the rich man’s son but in favor 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 honor, to maintain peace, because they are
patriotic citizens first and business men afterward.
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.
* * * * * *
Transcriber’s note:
Obvious errors in spelling or punctuation have been corrected.