Commendable action of the soldiers. The burden of great standing armies. non-interference with the liberty and acts of the ordinary citizen, discrimination in the distribution of food, enforcement of suitable sanitary methods, instruction in camp life, patient consideration and courteous deportment toward the homeless and destitute. The adaptability and resourcefulness shown by officers and men when dealing with novel and unprecedented conditions, their consideration and thoughtfulness in alleviating distress, their unvarying courtesy to all, and their uncomplaining devotion to the community and its interests are most commendable, and have exemplified anew the admirable attributes of the officers and men of our Army, which insure the successful application of its moral, intellectual, and physical powers to novel and difficult duties. 133. The American Theory of National Defense * In the following speech made in the Senate against the bill authorizing the increase of the standing army to the number of 100,000, Senator Teller thus voiced what is doubtless the general theory of the American people as to the desirability of relying upon able-bodied citizens rather than a paid regular soldiery as the best resource for defending the nation. I wish to say that my opposition to this bill is not because I think a hundred thousand men can destroy the liberties of this country, nor five hundred thousand, but because it establishes a principle contrary to a republican principle, which is that the fighting force of a republic is the great body of the people, and not a paid soldiery, called "regulars." Since the birth of the world, in all history, there has never been a time when the people were so pressed down and burdened by great armies and great army expenses as they are to-day. There are bigger armies now than when Napoleon fought the world. They are not in active service, but they are a weight upon the industries and upon the productive energies of the people. Russia, a country not rich, has 850,000 men in her army, and 3,500,000 that she can bring into the army. England, with 200,000 in her regular army, has now in the neigh bourhood of 400,000 men in the field. The total expenses for the armies of Europe alone in time of peace is enough to pay our interest-bearing debt every year. and a Mr. President, I object to this bill. I object to it as calculated Patriotism to injure and to destroy the patriotic impulse of the young men of paid army. the country, who want to be educated to believe that when there is danger they are the ones to confront it — the young men who should be taught to believe that a man is entitled to go into the Army when his country is assailed. He does not go into the Army for $15 a month, but he goes into it stimulated by patriotism and not by the hope of gain. You are going to say to all the young men, 'You are not needed; it is folly to take an interest in military affairs, for we are going to fight our battles in the future with paid hirelings," whom we pick up frequently out of the very slums of Europe; men who are fighting machines, but are not thinking men. of the Mr. President, we had a great army in the field, a million men at The armies one time on our side, and somewhat less on the other. Why were those two armies the best armies in the world that ever aggregated together? Simply because they were the brains and the patriotism of the country. There were, of course, some bounty jumpers and some foreigners, but the great battles were fought by the stalwart sons of American fathers and mothers, and that is where you have to go, unless you are to follow the European system and the European policy with a great standing army. Glorious won by battles We have fought our battles, not with the Regular Army, but with the volunteers. The great battles of the revolution were fought by humble men of the country who were not regulars. The war of volunteers. 1812, as will be discovered if anybody will take the pains to look, was won by volunteers, and the Mexican war was fought by volunteers and not by the regulars. The most glorious battles in the world, where the greatest heroism has been exhibited, where the greatest conflicts between men have taken place, have been fought, not by regulars, but by volunteers. It was the boys out of the shop, with the exception of the Old Guard, that fought for Napoleon on Y many a bloody battlefield. It was not the regulars. He called upon the French people and they responded. Such has been the case in England. Such is the case with every liberty-loving people. You must rely upon the people, not upon an army. An army is a vain delusion. It may to-day be for you; it may be against you to morrow. CHAPTER XVIII TAXATION AND FINANCE 134. The Uniformity Rule Applied to Indirect Taxes THE general taxing power of Congress is subject to the two great limitations that indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States and direct taxes must be apportioned among the States according to population. The question of direct and indirect taxes and the uniformity rule were thus discussed by the Supreme Court in the case of Knowlton v. Moore reviewing the inheritance tax law enacted during the Spanish-American war. of the question. The act of Congress of June 13, 1898, c. 448, which is usually Statement spoken of as the War Revenue Act, (30 Stat. 448), imposes various stamp duties and other taxes. Sections 29 and 30 of the statute, which are therein prefaced by the heading "Legacies and Distributive Shares of Personal Property," provide for the assessment and collection of the particular taxes which are described in the sections in question [i.e., inheritance taxes]. To determine the issues which arise on this record it is necessary to decide whether the taxes imposed are void because repugnant to the Constitution of the United States, and if they be valid, to ascertain and define their true import. It is asserted that it was decided in the income tax cases that, in order to determine whether a tax be direct within the meaning of the Constitution, it must be ascertained whether the one upon whom by law the burden of paying it is first cast, can thereafter shift it to another person. If he cannot, the tax would then be direct in the constitutional sense, and, hence, however obvious in other respects it might be a duty, impost, or excise, it cannot be levied by the rule of uniformity and must be apportioned. From this assumed premise it is argued that death duties cannot be shifted from the one on whom they are first cast by law, and therefore they are direct taxes requiring apportionment. The fallacy is in the premise. It is true that in the income tax cases the theory of certain economists by which direct and indirect taxes are classified with reference to the ability to shift the same was adverted to. But this disputable theory was not the basis of the conclusion of the court. The constitutional meaning of the word direct was the matter decided. Considering that the constitutional rule of apportionment had its origin in the purpose to prevent taxes on persons solely because of their general ownership of property from being levied by any other rule than that of apportionment, two things were decided by the court: First, that no sound distinction existed between a tax levied on a person solely because of his general ownership of real property, and the same tax imposed solely because of his general ownership of personal property. Secondly, that the tax on the income derived from such property, real or personal, was the legal equivalent of a direct tax on the property from which said income was derived, and hence must be apportioned. These conclusions, however, lend no support to the contention that it was decided that duties, imposts and excises which are not the essential equivalent of a tax on property generally, real or personal, solely because of its ownership, must be converted into direct taxes, because it is conceived that it would be demonstrated by a close analysis that they could not be shifted from the person upon whom they first fall. The proposition now relied upon was considered and refuted in Nicol v. Ames, 173 U.S. 509, 515, where the court said: "The commands of the Constitution in this, as in all other respects, must be obeyed; direct taxes must be apportioned, while indirect taxes must be uniform throughout the United States. But while yielding implicit obedience to these constitutional requirements, it is no part of the duty of this court to lessen, impede or obstruct the exercise of the taxing power by merely abstruse and subtle distinctions as to the particular nature of a specified tax, where such distinction rests more upon the differing theories of |