The Dominion. SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1909. RADICALS AND PRINCIPLES.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 562, 17 July 1909, Page 4

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JULY 17, 1909. RADICALS AND PRINCIPLES.

We . had,- an ', I excellentiA -illustration in our cable news on .Wednesday of tho tendency of tho '■:modern Radioal- to : play fast and loose "with .laws and :■[ principles. : .Your, (Radical;, ■■"■ will take,-/ a principle-Lofton;; a ....vicious one, ; but still a clear one—and proceed to work it into a legislative proposal. "He quickly discovers,that its application will breed injustices,' anomalies; arid inconveniences. Instead,' however, of : admitting .'that' the failure, of his principle 'to .stand firm against the ehocjc of.facts proves that the principle, is : unsound and .unjust,; and proper'to be abandoned,: he; simply, estimates tho'- voting powoK of..the; affected classes and restricts tho area of its operation accordingly—-he limits' quite arbitrarily: the/region within [which its injustices shall appear. ;It is as if,,convinced that two arid two make five, he were to framej upon-it a law, governing the .whole business of trading and finance, and, finding that such a law w6uld; have certain; intolerable; results, .were yet j<9 cling '.■'.■ to his principle,; and try to apply it somehow and over as wide an area as'possible. The ■news.item.to which we refer is that which reports; that the British Government has decided to exempt: "small" , properties from the operation of the proposed tax on the unearned incremont of land. This modification of tho original, proposal, it has naturally ibeen;pointed out, is proof that ''the income tax is-no longer based oh principle." That is a perfectly^sound criticism. The only' argument that has been put forward in justification of the tax has been that the,, unearned increment is wholly or mainly the. creation of the Community. If that principle is sound, and also i'reason why the tax should be levied—the two things are quite different the increment in the value of a small property has no' right to. be treated differently from the 'increment in : the value of a large property. 'If the principle is sound, it must be given; a universal application.' In the case of email properties, however, tho unwisdom from a party ; point of viow of taking 20 per cent.' of the increment is... particularly clear. The only right conclusion to be drawn , from this ■ fact is that the principle is unsound in essence. No juet principle, when it takes legislative expression, can inflict injustice.anywhere. If a law inflicts injustice then the principle responsible is unjust. Of course a just ■ principle: justly applied wm create what we call "hard cases.!' it is the soundest of maxims that "hard cases make bad law"—in other words, that there should be no exceptions under a. just law, if those-exceptions run"counter to tho principle and spirit of the law. -The modern Radical, as we have said, does not trouble himself .about principles. If, in the case under notice, tho Government were to say frankly that it, is after, the money of the better-off, the case would be different. There are plenty of illustrations of the Badicale' want of candour in our own recent legislation. There is even on record one notable case of their reckless disregard for common-sense as well as honesty when they become seized of a vicious idea. The Land Bill of 1906, it will be rcmem. bered, was declared by Dn.FiNDUvyafter its r witndrawal, to'be bo bad as to defy amendment. Yet up till thq last' the Radical?i had fought for it, and even whdn it was withdrawn one of; the Ministerialist organs in, this city actually censured the Government.for not haying maI jority : to drive the meaeuxp through I: *. .'