realize what great things have come out of Germany, and it makes more glaring the contrast with the present brutality and hoggishness. The pendulum has swung the other way, and to its limit. History records a parallel in the Janizaries of Turkey. Greek boys, seized from their mothers' arms, forced into militarism and fanaticism, became the most powerful, aggressive, and brutal of any soldiers in the Sultan's army. And in Germany, every youth is required to do seven years of military service, while his mother, sister, or father may pull the plow along with the family cow for twelve or fourteen hours a day. There is but seven per cent of illiteracy in Germany, the lowest in the world, which is another evidence of the industry and thrift in that hustling country. By the time a young man has completed his military service in Germany, his character is formed. His mind runs on and on in a military groove, and his taste for the beautiful is blunted. He dreams of conquest and of the glory of arms. Is there any wonder that he has become brutal? The framers of our Constitution were unanimous on one point, which was that a "man vested with authority for a long time would be bound to abuse that authority." A step further, and we might amplify it and say that the sovereign of a great and powerful nation who had continued in office a great length of time would be sure to abuse his power. The truth of this aphorism seems to be established by the fear, so often expressed in the na tions surrounding Germany, that she might at any moment crush them. It was intimated by Prince Henry, the brother of the Kaiser, when he visited Washington only a few years ago. A newspaper reporter quoted him as saying that "the fatherland would gladly stretch hands across the sea to greet us-or we could have it the other way if we wanted it." It was a shock to us, as we were entertaining the prince, as we were genuine, hearty admirers of Germany, and as many of us had, and still have, so many warm, personal friends among the Germans. We entered this world war reluctantly and in defense of our principles, but we have loaned more than six billion dollars to our allies. It is probable that ruined Russia, devastated Serbia, crushed Belgium, and pitiful Rumania may never be able to pay their debts to us, or perhaps even the interest upon them. But it has been proposed, in a joint resolution introduced in the Senate in May, 1918, that the United States shall "cancel all obligations of the Republic of France to the United States of America for monies borrowed or funds advanced since the commencement of the present war, including interest thereon." It is in the power of Congress to cancel the debt referred to in this resolution, but it would establish a very dangerous precedent. With this debt resting on the nation, we shall not be in any condition to compete with other nations in trade or manufactures, particularly if their indebtedness to us were cancelled, and if we cancel one such debt, we should be likely to cancel all. How to pay the debt created by the war is a problem. It should be pointed out that there is a powerful arm in our body politic which, opposing bond issues, advocates immediate taxation in a form which closely resembles confiscation. It will be well to recall the following passages from the issue of the CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW of April, 1918: "The newspapers have given scant publicity to what was called a conference on democratic financing of the war, which was held at Washington last January and which is stated to have been called at the request of labor leaders in labor and farmers' organizations. The presiding officer declared that the sentiment of the laboring classes was unequivocally against bond issues for financing the war, and in favor of revenue raising by means of various forms of taxation. These forms of taxation were described by other speakers, one of whom advocated taxation at the rate of 100 per cent on all incomes in excess of $100,000 a year, while others urged the imposition of taxes of 80 per cent or more on such incomes, on excess profits, and on unimproved lands. One of those who addressed the conference is reported to have said: 'We have within our grasp actual democracy democracy that means something in the life of the farmer of Kansas and the hog-sticker of Chicago. And the workers are determined that they shall not be deprived of this new democracy. The only sure way is for labor to demand, step by step, that wealth shall be taken as men are taken for the common good in the common fight. They are determined that they will not die while those whose object is the amassing of great profits remain to hoard new power through enormously increased wealth. But in plain simple words this means that wealth must be taken. We are glad that much has been taken; it is a great step forward; but more and yet more must be taken.'" Federal Taxation and State Rights The determination of the House of Representatives to include in the pending revenue bill a clause imposing taxation upon incomes derived from the interest on state and municipal bonds, and also upon the salaries of certain state, municipal, and federal officers, although this provision was stricken out by the Senate, should not pass without comment. For it shows either an amazing failure on the part of our representatives in Congress to acquaint themselves with the principles of constitutional law and history (a serious dereliction of duty for those who have sworn to support and defend the Constitution in their legislative capacity), or else a cynical willingness to pursue a course now unhappily too prevalent with legislative bodies, that is, to make experiments in unconstitutional legislation and "put it up to the courts" to say whether the statute can in any way be reconciled with the restrictions of the fundamental law. It is certain that before 1913 Con gress possessed no power to tax the revenues or the obligations of the states or of their municipalities. It is true this is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. But it is a necessary implication from the relation between the states and the Union and the necessity of giving to each an entire immunity from possibly destructive taxation on the part of the other. It is implied in the very structure and frame of our government. It is a federal government, and it could not be that without the constituent states. It is an "indissoluble union of indestructible states," and the preservation of the states in their full freedom and in their appropriate sphere is just as much the concern of the Constitution as is the maintenance of the Union. As between the Union and the state, neither can rightfully interfere with the full autonomous functioning of the other. It is inconceivable that a state should be permitted to thwart or obstruct the national government by taxing its officers, its instrumentalities, or its operations. But the converse of this proposition is equally true. It is not within the lawful power of Congress to impede the states, or their creatures the municipalities, even to the least degree, in carrying out the proper purposes of their being. The power to raise revenue by issuing state and municipal securities is an essential function of government. If it could be hindered, made more difficult, or made more costly, by the imposition of taxes from without, it could be totally removed by the same agency. For "the power to tax," it has been judicially said, "is a power to destroy." And if the authority of the federal government in this respect were once conceded, it would be humanly impossible to assign any limits to its exercise. In support of these conclusions we are fortunately able to adduce the unimpeachable authority of the Supreme Court of the United States. A case arose in 1870 in which the attempt had be made to apply the Civil War income tax act to the salary of a judge of a state court. It was decided that this could not be done, that it was not within the lawful competence of Congress to tax the salary paid by a state to one of its own judicial officers. It is from the clear and convincing opinion written by Justice Nelson that the following extracts are taken: "It is a familiar rule of construction of the Constitution of the United States that the sovereign powers vested in the state governments by their respective constitutions remained unaltered and unimpaired except so far as they were granted to the government of the United States. That the intention of the framers of the Constitution in this respect might not be misunderstood, this rule of interinterpretation is expressly declared in the tenth article of the amendments, namely, 'the powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the states respectively or to the people.' The government of the United States, therefore, can claim no powers which are not granted to it by the Constitution, and the powers actually granted must be such as are expressly given or given by necessary implication. The general government and the states, although both exist within the same territorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties, acting separately and independently of each other, within their respective spheres. The former in its appropriate sphere is supreme, but the states, within the limits of the powers not granted, or, in the language of the Tenth Amendment, 'reserved,' are as independent of the general government as that government within its sphere Both is independent of the states. the states and the United States existed before the Constitution. The people, through that instrument, established at more perfect union, by substituting a national government, acting with ample powers directly upon the citizens, instead of the confederate government, which acted with powers greatly restricted only upon the states. But in many of the articles of the Constitution the necessary existence of the states, and, within their proper spheres, the independent authority of the states, are distinctly recognized. To them nearly the whole charge of interior regulations is committed or left; to them and to the people all powers not expressly delegated to the national government are reserved. ernment are reserved. Upon looking into the Constitution, it will be found that but a few of the articles in that instrument could be carried into practical effect without the existence of the states. Two of the great departments of the government, the executive and legislative, depend upon the exercise of the powers, or upon the people, of the states. The Constitution guarantees to the states a republican form of government, and protects each against invasion or domestic violence. "Such being the separate and independent condition of the states in our complex system, as recognized by the Constitution, and the existence of which is so indispensable that without them the general government itself would disappear from the family of nations, it would seem to follow, as a reasonable if not a necessary consequence, that the means and instru mentalities employed for carrying on the operations of their governments, for preserving their existence, and fulfilling the high and responsible duties assigned to them in the Constitution, should be left free and unimpaired, should not be liable to be crippled, much less defeated, by the taxing power of another government, which power acknowledges no limits but the will of the legislative body imposing the tax. If the means and instrumentalities employed by that government (the federal government) to carry into operation the powers granted to it are necessarily and for the sake of selfpreservation exempt from taxation by the states, why are not those of the states depending upon their reserved powers for like reasons equally exempt from federal taxation? Their unimpaired existence in the one case is as essential as in the other. It is admitted that there is no express provision in the Constitution that prohibits the general government from taxing the means and instrumentalities of the states, nor is there any prohibiting the states from taxing the means and instrumentalities of that government. In both cases the exemption rests upon necessary implication, and is upheld by the great law of self-preservation; as any government whose means employed in conducting its operations, if subject to the control of another and distinct government, can exist only at the mercy of that government. Of what avail are these means if another power may tax them at discretion?" (The Collector vs. Day, 11 Wallace, 113.) But it may be argued that while the states are necessary to the Union, and are protected and preserved by the Constitution, and while, for that reason, it may be incompetent for the general government to tax their officers or their governmental operations, this is not true of cities and towns. And what is there so sacrosanct about a municipality that the income accruing from its bonds may not be taxed? To this also the Supreme Court has returned an answer. It has explicitly declared that a municipal corporation is a portion of the sovereign power of the state, and it is not subject to taxation by Congress upon its municipal revenues. (United States vs. Railroad Company, 17 Wallace, 322.) And more particularly with reference to the fiscal operations of municipalities and the rights of the holders of their securities, an important decision was made in the case in which the income tax act of 1894 was pronounced unconstitutional. In the course of his opinion in that case, Chief Justice Fuller wrote as follows: "Another question is directly presented by the record as to the validity of the tax levied by the act upon the income derived from municipal bonds. The averment in the bill is that the defendant company owns two millions of the municipal bonds of the City of New York, from which it derives an annual income of $60,000. The Constitution contemplates the independent exercise by the nation and the state severally of their constitutional powers. As the states cannot tax the powers, the operations, or the property of the United |