ward dealing, he would be regarded as a worthy inmate for the States prison. But this is exactly what the Government of the United States does, or proposed to do, in the case of many of its so-called tax statutes. Thus in the recent income-tax statute it offered to its citizens considerations in money if they would forswear themselves, or practice deception; and it imposed a direct and heavy fine on those who were conscientious and truthful. Again, when the Government imposes a tax of more than a thousand per cent in excess of the prime cost of the article taxed, as it did in 1864 in the case of distilled spirits (whiskey), it offered a premium for the perpetration of fraud that human nature as ordinarily constituted could not resist. Could any course of action, if deliberately intended, be more demoralizing to a people? Do not these experiences go far in support of the theory that if a people desire to have a paternal government it would be wise to choose a despotic form, inasmuch as all experience has shown that a republican or popular form of government is least fitted for such work? Give democracy a firm hold of the reins of government, and it is no easy matter, as the French Revolution of 1789 and the present fiscal condition of France exemplify, to restrain its excesses.
It should not furthermore be overlooked that that class of the community to whom the questions of morality and religion, are especially intrusted, rarely, if ever, give this subject of taxation any attention. If any sermon has ever been preached in this country by any clergyman of any denomination on the moral and religious results of a defective system of taxation, the writer has never heard of it. One reason and apology for such conduct may be found in the circumstance that intelligent and reliable expositions of this subject are not readily accessible. Indifference or antagonism to the study of taxation is not, however, confined to the clergy. Minds trained in the law are not necessarily, and indeed rarely, trained thereby to esteem or intelligently discuss economic subjects. One of the most eminent members of the American bar recently remarked to the writer that, grant whatever measure of importance we may to economic principles and interests, they have no place in the legal profession, the business of which was, not to make or amend laws as expressed in enactments, but to interpret and determine their application. Hence the popularity at the American bar of the legal maxim stare decisis, which may be interpreted to mean, follow precedents, and do not attempt to invalidate the reasons and conclusions of the lawmakers. Such a theory and rule of practice would, however, close the door on reason and truth, and constitute an almost insuperable barrier to all social progress. If Lord Mansfield, when the negro slave Somerset came before him with a de-
