Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

Mr. MOORE. But you say these gentlemen have promised you articles, and two of them are already in. I want to ask you whether you wrote the article which appears on page 7 of the Farmers' Open Forum for the month of May, 1918, entitled "Menace of mammoth fortunes," in which you say:

Let the intelligent people of this country remember always that wherever a democracy, a government of, for, and by the people, has fallen anywhere in the world, it has fallen at the hands of those who have built up great private fortunes, and it has fallen the moment when those possessing these great fortunes reached a point in power which enabled them to overthrow the democratic government. 1

Do you care to say at this time whether Secretary Baker, or any one of these gentlemen who have promised to write you an article, holds the same views that you do with regard to the destruction of private fortunes?

Mr. MARSH. I do not feel that I could speak for them, but I am very sure that if you will ask Secretary Baker to come before you he will tell you what he thinks about the democratic financing of the

war.

Mr. MOORE. I presume you know that Mr. Baker has officially sent to the Committee on Appropriations estimates asking for very large sums of money which must be raised by taxation of the people to prosecute the war, and some of those large sums must come from private fortunes as well as from other sources. Now, I want to ask you again whether any of the gentlemen know of your views with regard to the destruction of private fortunes and whether any of them have written you along that line?

Mr. MARSH. In the first place, let me correct you. I have not urged the destruction of private fortunes. I think you were here the other day when I said specifically that I did not favor a capital tax, and let me add that I think it is a great misfortune that the Republican Party did not, when it was in power for some 30 years, make an enumeration of the incomes in this country.

Mr. TREADWAY. Are we obliged to listen to criticisms of political parties?

The CHAIRMAN. I would not do that.

Mr. MARSH. I apologize, and ask to have it stricken out; but I thought it was germane to the question that was put to me.

Mr. TREADWAY. It is not.

Mr. MARSH. Then I apologize and withdraw it.

Mr. MOORE. I am only quoting to you from the document before me, and I am not endeavoring to introduce politics at all.

Mr. MARSH. Neither am I.

Mr. MOORE. I trust not. You are advocating something with which some of us may disagree, and it is only fair that we should get your viewpoint and find what is behind it.

Mr. MARSH. Surely. I was trying to lead up to that.

Mr. MOORE. You say that you do not believe in the destruction of private fortunes. How, then, do you account for this article headed, Menace of mammoth fortunes," in which you refer to the fact that so far as the history of the world is concerned, it shows that governments built up by great private fortunes have been the first to fall?

Mr. MARSH. There is very little difference between destroying for tunes and between the Government taking those fortunes for public

use. That is my answer, if I get your question clearly. Now, I think it is utterly un-American and undemocratic for any man to have an income of over $10,000,000 a year.

Mr. MOORE. An income?

Mr. MARSH. Yes.

Mr. MOORE. How many have that?

Mr. MARSH. I will have to refer you to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue or even over $5,000,000, of which there are 10.

Mr. MOORE. Why are you unable to say how many men in the Nation have an income of $10,000,000 a year?

Mr. MARSH. Because the Commissioner of Internal RevenueMr. MOORE (interposing). Let me ask you

Mr. MARSH (interposing). I appeal to the chairman whether it is fair for you to put these questions and then interrupt me before I can answer them.

an

Mr. MOORE. I asked you how many and then you started in on

Mr. MARSH (interposing). And then you started in and asked me another question, and I am not going to stand for that. I am going to stand on my rights as an American citizen.

Mr. Moo RE. The answer to the question would be one, two, three, or whatever the number might be.

Mr. MARSH. It would not. You asked me why I did not know, and I am trying to tell you why. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue does not give out those figures, although I will say that I think it proper that he should give the public information as to the recipients of those incomes.

Mr. MOORE. Have you any reason to believe how many men there are in the United States who have incomes of $10,000,000?

Mr. MARSH. I am not entering into any conjecture. I think there are several, however.

Mr. MOORE. That would be three or four.

Mr. MARSH. I think so, but I do not know. That is one reason why I suggested that there should be full publicity as to incomes of over $25,000.

Mr. MOORE. What would you do as to those incomes exceeding $100,000 per annum?

Mr. MARSH. I should say, if the recipients cared to hang to democracy, that those incomes should be devoted toward the successful prosecution of this war.

Mr. MOORE. How many do you think there are who have an income of over $100,000?

Mr. MARSH. I am afraid my data has been mislaid, but it is my recollection that there are about 2,200. I have not the figures, but I can get them and read them to you from the report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, if you want me to take the time to do it.

Mr. MOORE. I can help you on that.

Mr. MARSH. I can get it, because it is just a question of addition. It would be about 4,000, according to his last figures. I do not know how it stands this year.

Mr. MOORE. I think it is 2,900, Mr. Marsh, in excess of $100,000. Now, I ask you again, what would you do

Mr. MARSH (interposing). May I correct that for the record? It says here, $100,000 to $150,000, 2,900; $150,000 to $200,000, 1.284: $200,000 to $250,000, 726; $250,000 to $300,000, 427. So, I was mistaken. It is about 6,000, but I was just speaking informally. That number of people have incomes in excess of $100,000. And many of these men let me make it clear-are not doing a stroke of work; they are sitting still and raking in the dividends.

Mr. MOORE. May I ask you what the income is doing?

Mr. MARSH. The income which those gentlemen receive is breeding more income.

Mr. MOORE. In what way?

Mr. MARSH. In production.

Mr. MOORE. Is not that commendable?

Mr. MARSH. Yes. But if the income which those gentlemen take to breed more income were taken in taxes, then the income of the toiling men could be left in their hands, and those toilers could have a little income to breed some more income, so that they could have some income with which to look the future in the face, which would result in relieving the poor people of Philadelphia, where I lived for several years.

Mr. MOORE. We have imposed no taxes on poverty.

Mr. MARSH. My dear Congressman, pardon me

Mr. MOORE (interposing). We can not tax poverty, because poverty has nothing with which to pay.

Mr. MARSH. Let me say a thing, Mr. Congressman, which I think can not be controverted, that the poor people of America are to-day paying infinitely more in proportion to their incomes than are the rich.

Mr. MOORE. Let us get back, then, to the question of income.

Mr. MARSH. Where does this $2,000,000,000 of miscellaneous receipts come from? Who pays the taxes on food and on clothing? Who pays the increase of 50 per cent in postage on first-class matter? Mr. MOORE. That is general, of course.

Mr. MARSH. Who pays taxes on all consumption? The working people, who are the enormously great consumers, I do not want to go into this tariff issue and excess-profits issue, but you have raised the question. I would like to show you that you do tax the poor.

Mr. MOORE. If you are going to rest your case on the increase in first-class postage I will ask you to tell me how much the Government derived from the increased first-class postage last year?

Mr. MARSH. I can not tell you exactly. It is a small amount, relatively, and I just mentioned that as one out of a dozen things. Mr. MOORE. We are expected to raise $8,000,000,000 through taxation, and I would like to know how much that increase in firstclass postage is going to furnish?

Mr. MARSH. It will be a small amount, and I only picked that out as one of many things.

Mr. MOORE. Is it not so small as to make the general argument almost ridiculous?

Mr. MARSH. Not as a part of several. If it was to be so small, what was the necessity for the imposition of the increased cost?

Mr. MOORE. Because we sought to get more money in that way and every other way we could, and, as far as possible, make a fair apportionment.

Mr. MARSH. What do you think is a fair apportionment?

Mr. MOORE. That was determined, according to the judgment of the committee, by the bill that passed last year, with which you are familiar. We apportioned it as fairly as the committee thought it could be apportioned amongst the people of the United States. taxed excess profits; we taxed incomes; we taxed

We

Mr. MARSH. Excess profits were taxed 31 cents, whereas Great Britain taxes them 80 cents.

Mr. MOORE. And consumption taxes were not imposed. It is a question now whether they will have to be imposed or not. But I want to get back to your organization.

Mr. MARSH. May I answer your question from the report of the Secretary of the Treasury, because I think I can make it clear that they are being compelled to pay something at least. He estimates the total receipts from miscellaneous as something over $1,000,000,000. Mr. MOORE. But, you see, that is very much under $8,000,000,000. Mr. MARSH. I am endeavoring to show you how to get the balance. Mr. MOORE. How are you going to get the balance if you destroy production, because you admit that these excess incomes are going into production.

Mr. MARSH. As I understand, the Government is going to have need for about $30,000,000, and that money has got to come either by taxes or by loans, and your rich men have got to put their big surplus either into loans or they have got to pay it in taxes. Now, the question is whether the Government of the United States will compel something approximating the equality of financial sacrifice, if you please, by taking those big incomes and taxes, and then I can assure you that the farmers and laboring men of this country will loan the Government the difference.

Mr. MOORE. Are you the secretary of the Association for an Equitable Federal Income Tax?

Mr. MARSH. I am.

Mr. MOORE. The president of that association is John J. Hopper? Mr. MARSH. Of New York; yes.

Mr. MOORE. Do you have headquarters in New York?

Mr. MARSH. No; they are closed. I am doing everything from

here now.

Mr. MOORE. What is the main purpose of that association?

Mr. MARSH. The main purpose of that association is to secure a rapid and progressive tax on big incomes, a heavy excess-profits tax, and taxation on land values for the Federal Government, particularly of unused or inadequately used land.

Mr. MOORE. Who is John J. Hopper?

Mr. MARSH. John J. Hopper is a large contractor and engineer in New York City. He was the registrar of the county of New York for four years.

Mr. MOORE. I see that the Hon. Frederic C. Howe is a member of the executive committee of that association?

Mr. MARSH. He is.

Mr. MOORE. Who is Mr. Howe?

Mr. MARSH. Mr. Howe is a well-known publicist and writer and now commissioner of immigration at the port of New York.

64059-18-No. 3-2

Mr. MOORE. Is he in favor of the overthrow of private fortunes and the cutting down of incomes in excess of $100,000 or $50,000? Mr. MARSH. I think he will be very heartily in favor of that. Mr. MOORE. Have you gentlemen had conferences-you gentlemen of these various associations, and also the committees to which you have referred-on this subject recently?

Mr. MARSH. We had one in January of this year.

Mr. MOORE. Was that the one which was attended by Mr. Townley, the head of the Nonpartisan League?

Mr. MARSH. It was not.

Mr. MOORE. Did you attend a conference in which Mr. Townley took part a short time ago?

Mr. MARSH. Did I attend the conference?

Mr. MOORE. Yes.

Mr. MARSH. Yes, sir.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MOORE. Did you write an article in the Farmers' Open Forum of May, 1918, headed "Charges of disloyalty against the National Nonpartisan League"?

Mr. MARSH. I did.

Mr. MOORE. That article was rather friendly to Mr. Townley, was it not?

Mr. MARSH. I think that that article was fair.

Mr. MOORE. Mr. Townley is now under indictment for seditious utterances in Minnesota, is he not?

Mr. MARSH. Well, many wealthy men have been under indictment but they have not been found guilty under the indictment.

Mr. MOORE. But he is under indictment, is he not?

Mr. MARSH. I believe he was indicted, but whether the indictment has been quashed or not I do not know. Will you read a list of the officials who were present at that meeting which I attended!

Mr. MOORE. I intended to do that, because I think that ought to be in the record. I think these people ought to know with whom they are associating, so that it will be clear to everybody.

Mr. MARSH. Do you think that the National Grange, which adopted at its last session a resolution in favor of taking incomes of over $100,000 to pay for the war, was influenced by anything unfair?

Mr. MOORE. It depends on whether the National Grange was acting through one of these legislative committees to which you have referred, or whether that resolution represented the real farmer element of the country and thoroughly and honestly represented the sentiment of the farmer body of this country. But if they were indorsing anybody who made seditious utterances, that would be a very serious matter.

Mr. MARSH. You are not charging me with engaging in seditious utterances, are you?

Mr. MOORE. No; but I am going to read to you a few of these paragraphs and ascertain whether you sympathize with Mr. Townley's views?

The CHAIRMAN. I might suggest that you make it as brief as possible.

Mr. MARSH. I have not quite finished my statement, and I have not had 10 minutes in which to submit my statement, because most of my time has been taken up in answering these questions.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »