The new edition of American Quaker War Tax Resistance is now available in Kindle format for those of you who prefer the e-reader experience.

Google Books has also just put searchable limited-preview versions of my books on-line:

• My Thoughts are Murder to the State
• The Price of Freedom
• We Won’t Pay
• Against War and War Taxes
• Rebecca Riots!
• American Quaker War Tax Resistance

The latest issue of More Than a Paycheck, NWTRCC’s newsletter, is now on-line. Contents include:

• Getting ready for 2012’s tax season by Ruth Benn
• Notes on the new minimum income tax-free income levels, techniques for avoiding bank account levies, and how much of your money you can legally give away without IRS complications
• International news including an article by the late Spanish war tax resister Pedro Otaduy
• Action ideas including an outreach letter to community radio, a new blog, another war tax resistance legal appeal, and an election day penny poll
• NWTRCC news including an announcement of the next national gathering (Chicago this May), the new home of our email discussion list, a hunt for nominees to join the Administrative Committee, and a follow-up on those arrested in the civil disobedience action during the last national gathering in Kansas City
• Beth Seberger tells how she became a war tax resister and why

The new blog mentioned above is MathewCh5v9, featuring writing by war tax resister Vickie Aldrich, largely reviewing letters from her father from when he was in a Civilian Public Service camp for drafted conscientious objectors during World War II.

She has also addressed her own conscientious objection — war tax resistance — in some posts:

• Baby pigs, corn pickers and frivolous filing (18 July 2011)
• Chickens and Conscience (31 July 2011)
• Do hickeys, shellac and appealing to the IRS (8 August 2011)
• The problem is the moneyed man (23 August 2011)
• Spring Steamliners and talking with Iris (28 August 2011)
• A Bigger God and goodbye wages (25 September 2011)
• Being a good citizen (2 October 2011)
• Writing to people, retiring and more IRS fun (18 December 2011)
• Salt and Light and the IRS (15 January 2012)

British war resisters — organized as “Count Me Out” — are boycotting the census. In tax resistance campaigns of yore, census resistance has usually come because the census was seen as a prelude to a tax. In this case, the boycott has a different cause: the resisters are protesting against the government’s awarding of the contract to run the census to the arms manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

“When I was 18 I refused to fire a rifle on military service,” John Marjoram told a reporter. “I couldn’t live with myself if I collaborated with a military company.”

The government is responding to the boycott with criminal prosecutions, and has thusfar won over 100 convictions.

One resister, Derek Shields, said at his sentencing: “I’ve only got one thing to say and that is I’m a Christian and I wouldn’t get into bed with an arms dealer.” He was fined by the court, and quickly responded that he would not pay: “I’m not going to pay. If I pay that’s admitting I’ve done something wrong and I don’t believe I have done anything wrong.”

Obama’s state of the union speech opened and closed with paeans to America’s soldiers, and hopes that the rest of America could be more like them. This is a symptom of what Pete Kofod calls “The Rise of the Praetorian Class.”

The ranks of the uniformed enforcers — in military, law-enforcement, and imprisonment — have grown, and the resources they command and the political influence they wield have grown as well. As Kofod puts it: “The Praetorian Class is formed and grown to defend the Political Class and in time becomes the dragon that rules its master.”

For instance, in my state (California), the prison guards’ union more or less owns the legislature. Nobody has the courage to cross them, and so they always get their way. This is self-reinforcing political feedback, since much of what the union demands is more power, legal impunity, influence, and resources.

New increases to road tolls across Greece were recently announced. The money is going to international finance companies who purchased the rights to the tolls — along with contractually-mandated toll increases — from the Greek government about five years ago. The current government is quick to say that the increases aren’t their fault.

“The increase in tolls was not a political decision, but is required by the contract with the grantees,” said Infrastructure Minister Makis Voridis. “There is no ‘won’t pay’ option: the question is who will pay, the drivers or the taxpayers.”

The troublesome Greek “Won’t Pay” movement may have other ideas.

http://www.unz.org/ has some scans of old magazines of interest. Naturally, I went hunting for tax-resistance related bits and pieces. Today, a hodge-podge of ads that gives a sort of impressionistic picture of the state of the American war tax resistance movement during the early to mid 1970s.

The first one comes from the DC Gazette from this date in 1973:

The next comes from the back cover of New Politics, also from January, 1973:

The next comes from the DC Gazette from February, 1975:

The next comes from the 19 April 1972 DC Gazette:

A similar effort is underway today, with the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee collecting names of signers to its War Tax Boycott in the hopes of assembling an impressive public list of resisters.

The last ad in today’s flashback comes from the June 1975 DC Gazette:

War tax resisters are still active in the Washington, DC area. You can visit the Washington DC Area War Tax Resistance site.

Thanks to Claire Wolfe for plugging The Picket Line at Living Freedom.

I’ve many times mentioned Ammon Hennacy’s tax resistance hereabouts, but have only less-frequently commented on his more-well-known Catholic Worker comrade Dorothy Day’s stance.

The site catholicworker.org now has a search engine with which I have been able to recover some of her writings on the subject, which I’ll excerpt here today.

from “If Conscription Comes For Women” The Catholic Worker January 1943

“Render to Caesar the things which are Caesar’s.” Yes, and we have heard too much of that.

Let E.I. Watkin, founder of the Pax movement in England, author of The Catholic Center, Men and Tendencies, and The Bow in the Clouds, answer as he did in his pamphlet, “The Crime of Conscription.”

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s. This is a favorite text with the hosts of Christian clerics, Protestant and Catholic, who both in the present and in the past, have abused and still abuse religion to enslave men’s consciences to the unjust bondages of a usurping state. They omit to notice the context. Our Lord has just asked for a coin, and having obtained the admission that it bear’s Caesar’s image and superscription, bids his questioners render to Caesar what is his. This is obviously the coin payable in taxation which bears Caesar’s stamp.

The body and soul of man, however, do not bear Caesar’s image. Whose image they do bear we are told in Holy Scripture. It is the image of God. Obviously, therefore, as we are to render to Caesar what bears his image, namely, money, we are to render to God, not to Caesar, what bears not Caesar’s stamp, but God’s; namely, human beings. Thus the same text which justifies, indeed, imposes the obligation of paying taxes, denies any right of the state to take a toll of man. All forced labor, for example, is implicitly declared unlawful. And still more does the principle here enunciated forbid military conscription. Whether a war be just or unjust, no government may without grave injustice compel me — bearing as I do the divine image which marks me as God’s bondman, but a freeman in respect to my fellows — to slay and be slain in its quarrel unless I freely consent. If a government unlawfully outsteps its prerogative and imposes conscription, any one who, from whatever motive, refuses to serve, is whether he intend it or not, fighting for human dignity and freedom, as also is anyone who abets and supports his resistance.

But now in these days it would be desirable to go even further, as did Thoreau, to refuse even the taxes which were to be used to pay for the means to kill our fellow man. In many cases, however, it is all but impossible to separate the tax from the cost of the commodity needed to maintain life.

from “More About Holy Poverty, Which Is Voluntary Poverty” The Catholic Worker February 1945

We believe that social security legislation, now balled as a great victory for the poor and for the worker, is a great defeat for Christianity. It is an acceptance of the Idea of force and compulsion.

[The people] pay taxes, and it is the city and the state and the federal government that is robbing them and pilfering them, too, They are taxed for every bite they eat, every shoddy rag they put on. They are taxed on their jobs, there are deductions for this and that, there are the war bonds, eighteen dollars for a twenty-five dollar war bond, paid on the Installment plan. And they are not only being taxed, but they are being seduced. Their virtue is being drained from them. They are made into war profiteers, they are forced into the position of usurers. The whole nation, every man woman and child, is forced to become a profiteer — hideous word — in this war

from “Poverty Without Tears” The Catholic Worker April 1950

If you cry aloud for land and home and tools and the good natural life for the poor without which a good supernatural life is impossible, then you are either an escapist and an inhabitant of an ivory tower, or you are a Communist in disguise trying to do away with property.

And you are a communist also if you cry out for peace and against increased armaments — against the making of the hydrogen and atom bombs and the paying of federal taxes for the making of those bombs. We know, who picketed March 15 before the tax offices up on 45^th street, because we heard these jibes as we walked to and fro with our signs.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker September 1950

We will have more to write about taxes later. We believe in paying our local taxes but not federal. Maybe this is quibbling, but the benefits of hospitals, fire department, street cleaning and health department, etc. make us firm in our decision to always pay our local taxes though we will not pay income tax.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker February 1953

I can scarcely list all the people Ammon [Hennacy] introduced me to, all the friends he has made through his constant protest against war and taxes for war, and his distribution of the Catholic Worker. But I can give a little glimpse of Ammon’s living quarters, in his little three room bungalow on Lin Orme’s place some five miles out of town [Phoenix, Arizona].

Ammon likes to call our Lord the Celestial Bulldozer to indicate that ones way is smoothed for one, the rough ways made plain and the crooked straight. He arrived in Phoenix broke, he said, as he came further south out of the dairy region to the farming section of the country where he could work by the day and not by the month and so avoid the withholding tax. He slept all night on an anarchist’s floor (one of the readers of the CW) and got up at daylight to go to the slave market, as the corner is named in every town in every state, Calif., Texas, Florida, New Mexico and Arizona, where immigrant workers are employed. Some times there are as many as 200 trucks, sometimes only 25. They go as far as seventy miles away for the day’s work. Mexican trucks take only Mexicans. He got on the second truck, owned by the Arena brothers, a corporation which owns land in California, Colorado, and Arizona, and specializes in lettuce, melons, cabbage, celery. This was October 7, 1947, the year the withholding tax began. At the end of his day’s work he asked if there was a shack on the place where he could sleep, and a fellow worker told him of one down the road and he took his sleeping bag and camped out there for the night. He stayed there for some months and as it was on land rented by Mr. Orme to the company, he became acquainted with that old gentleman who later invited him to occupy the vacant shack on his own land. There is one room and two porches, rather than three rooms, really, and before Ammon lived there, twelve Mexicans had camped out there. I sat on the porch one afternoon with Ammon and drank strong black coffee, brewed on a little kitchen stove, stuffed with mesquite which burned fragrantly while we talked.

from “Poverty Is to Care and Not to Care” The Catholic Worker April 1953

How does property fit in, people ask. It was Eric Gill who said that property is proper to man. And St. Thomas Aquinas said that a certain amount of goods is necessary to lead a good life. The recent popes wrote at length about justice rather than charity, that should be sought for the worker. Unions are still fighting for wages and hours, and it is a futile fight with the price of living going up steadily. They are fighting for partial gains and every strike means sacrifice to make them, and still the situation in the long run is not bettered. There may be talk of better standards of living, every worker with his car, and owning his own home, but still this comfort depends on a wage, a boss, on War. Our whole modern economy is based on preparation for war and that is one of the great modern arguments for poverty. If the comfort one has gained has resulted in the death of thousands in Korea and other parts of the world, then that comfort will be have to be atoned for. the argument now is that there is no civilian population, that all are involved in the war (misnamed defense) effort. If you work in a textile mill making cloth, or in a factory making dungarees or blankets, it is still tied up with war. If one raises food or irrigates to raise food, one may be feeding troops or liberating others to serve as troops. If you ride a bus you are paying taxes. Whatever you buy is taxed so you are supporting the state in the war which is “the health of the state.”

The argument may go this way, but we still can choose what seems to us the most honorable occupations, which have to do with human needs. We can choose the kind of work most necessary to do, and if possible where there is no withholding tax for war. Ammon Hennacy in working by the day, at hard farm labor, has not paid income tax for years. One can so cut down one’s standard of living that no income tax is required; families with many children pay no income tax. One can protest in many ways this contribution to the atom and hydrogen bomb. If one owns property the government then can take a lien on it. If one has money in the bank, the government can confiscate it. So truly such protest as this calls for the most profound poverty and a voluntary doing without property.

from “The Pope and Peace” The Catholic Worker February 1954

How obey the laws of a state when they run counter to man’s conscience? “Thou shalt not kill,” Divine law states. “A new precept I give unto you that you love your brother as I have loved you.” St. Peter disobeyed the law of men and stated that he had to obey God rather than man. Wars today involve total destruction, obliteration bombing, killing of the innocent, the stockpiling of atom and hydrogen bombs. When one is drafted for such war, when one registers for the draft for such a war, when one pays income tax, eighty per cent of which goes to support such war, or works where armaments are made, one is participating in this war. We are all involved in war these days. War means hatred and fear. Love casts out fear.

from “Are the Leaders Insane?” The Catholic Worker April 1954

St. Augustine in his City of God says that God never intended man to dominate his fellows. He was to dominate the beasts of the field, the fowls of the air, what crawled upon the earth, but men were not to dominate each other. He preferred shepherds to kings. It was man himself who insisted on having a worldly king though he was warned what would happen to him. God allowed the prophets to anoint the kings and once men had accepted their kings they were supposed to show them respect, to obey the authority they had set up. To obey, that is, in all that did not go against their conscience. St. Peter was ordered by lawful authority not to preach in the name of Jesus, and he said he had to obey God rather than man, and he left prison to go out again to the market place and preach the Gospel. Over and over again, men had to disobey lawful authority to follow the voice of their conscience.

This obedience to God and disobedience to the State has over and over again happened through history.

It is time again to cry out against our “leaders,” to question whether or not, since it is not for us to say that they are evil men, they are sane men.

It is all very well to say we must go to the source of all strength, to drink at the living fountain of Christ, but can we go from that fount of Love to a factory where nerve gas and incendiary bombs are manufactured?

When we have talked of a general strike it is of such work and of such evil that we are thinking; when we talk of non-payment of taxes it is of the money which is going to Indo-China in the form of these incendiary bombs and the planes to drop them that we are thinking. It is not thus that we can love God and our brother; it is not in this way that we can love our enemy.

When it is said that we disturb people too much by the words pacifism and anarchism, I can only think that people need to be disturbed, that their consciences need to be aroused, that they do indeed need to look into their work, and study new techniques of love and poverty and suffering for each other. Of course the remedies are drastic, but then too the evil is a terrible one and we are all involved, we are all guilty, and most certainly we are all going to suffer. The fact that we have “the faith,” that we go to the sacraments, is not enough. “Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me” with napalm, nerve gas, our hydrogen bomb…

Each one of us must make our decisions as to what he should do, each one must examine his conscience and beg God for strength. Should one register for the draft? Should one accept conscientious objector status in the army or out of it, taking advantage of the exceptions allowed, but accepting the fact of the draft? Should one pay tax which supports this gigantic program?

I realize how difficult this is to decide. If one is unmarried and strong physically, it is easier to make a decision to do only day labor or work without pay. But there are many whose mental and physical strength is not equal to this decision and there is a withholding tax taken from even the smallest salary. Sometimes one can only make a gesture of protest. It is not for any one to judge his fellow man on how far he can go in resisting participation in preparation for war. In the very works of mercy which we are performing, we at the Catholic Worker are being aided by those who earn what they do only because they pay income tax for war. Oh yes, the editors of The Catholic Worker know only too well how far we too are involved in the city of this world. Perhaps Bob Ludlow, who left us much against our will, felt that he was being more honest in permitting a withholding tax to be taken from his meager wage as hospital attendant that working for nothing for the Catholic Worker. Who knows the heart of another? The temptation is always there to go out on one’s own, to walk the lone path of a St. Francis rather than the community way of a St. Benedict.

from “Mid-Summer Retreat at Maryfarm” The Catholic Worker July–August 1954

[Ammon Hennacy] has had to abandon his life at hard labor and to replace that discipline of work he is fasting Fridays; during our recent retreat he fasted, and again in August for nine days he will picket and fast in reparation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the cruel weapons of destruction which we have made. All men are responsible, but Ammon by not paying income tax, and by penance, is doing reparation.

from “What is Happening?” The Catholic Worker November 1955

And the other trouble? It was Federal income taxes and investigations for Ammon Hennacy, Charlie McCormick, Carol Perry and me. Charlie has had no income for all the years he is with The Catholic Worker, but the rest of us could acknowledge having earned money on which we did not pay taxes, and which we refuse to pay because eighty per cent of the money so gathered goes for wars past and present. The others were treated with great courtesy, but one of the revenue agents made a coldly insulting remark to me based on my past, which was entirely uncalled for. But perhaps he was only stupid so I acted as though I did not hear it.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker December 1957

I would like to urge upon the bishops the idea of the non-payment of taxes by Catholic parents for school taxes, when they are sending their children to Catholic schools and so are paying double for their education.

from “The Pope is Dead. Long Live the Pope / Viva John XXIII” The Catholic Worker November 1958

Yes, we must set ourselves with all the force we possess, against war, and the making of instruments of war, and our means are prayer and fasting, and the non-payment of federal income tax which goes for war.

from “Month of the Dead” The Catholic Worker November 1959

The message of The Catholic Worker is that simple one for all the rank and file, for the masses, that we have free will, we can make our choice, that our personal responsibility which we exercise is what matters. Ammon [Hennacy], in his non-payment of taxes for war, and his civil disobedience, is bringing that message to countless thousands of people.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker March 1960

When we got home from our little tour of the neighborhood and I had explored the view from the eleventh floor, Ammon came for supper and brought us up to date on his journeyings as well as on the news of our own workers in Chicago. He had no sooner arrived in town on Saturday when he was called on to picket in front of the courthouse for Roseanna Robinson. They are keeping up a vigil night and day, people joining for a stint of three hours at a time. I certainly hope to join them sometime these next few days. Roseanna is a young colored woman who had refused to pay any income tax 85 per cent of which goes for war, or to file any returns. She had been given an indeterminate sentence and she is now for two weeks on hunger strike. I suppose they will forcibly feed her. The newspapers are paying little head to this, so it is necessary to have the picket line, and Karl Meyer has gotten out a leaflet which is signed by The Catholic Worker, 164 West Oak street and the War Resisters League which takes in all those who are not Catholic who wish to participate but might hesitate if it were only under Catholic leadership.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker April 1961

There is much to be done in these small Indian schools throughout the country [the United States South-West], and a peace army could be at work there right now, without waiting to be drafted. There would be no pay besides a living, and so no bother about income tax, and so no contributing to war in this way.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker June 1966

I could not help but think of Don Milani’s statement in his defense against the charges made against him of advocating resistance to conscription for war. He said that even those who cooked for troops contributed to war. How involved we all are, what with the hidden taxes we pay for war, the high standard of living all of us enjoy, even when we refuse to pay income tax, so much of which goes for war, and when we build prisons for draft refusers.

“Tribute to the Nelsons” The Catholic Worker February 1968

Every summer for the past three years a Peacemakers training program has been held at our Tivoli farm for the last two or three weeks of August. The old mansion and the Peter Maurin house are filled with guests, and campers come and set up their tents on the lawn facing the river. The organizer of the Peacemakers’ school is Wally Nelson, who has been in the workhouse in Cincinnati for the past two weeks, fasting. He and several others were arrested during a vigil for DeCourcy Squire, an 18 yr. old Antioch student who had been hospitalized after fasting since her arrest Dec. 7 and subsequent sentence of 9 mo. for participating in a peace demonstration. (DeCourcy has since been released.)

A psychiatric examination was ordered for Wally when he refused to co-operate with his arrest and trial. Found by court psychiatrists to be “sane,” he was sentenced for “loitering” to ten days in the workhouse, $25 and costs. Again refusing to co-operate with legalized injustice, he was dragged from the police van by his legs, an action that caused his wife Juanita to follow him, cradling his head in her hands. When they arrived at Wally’s cell, Nita bent over to kiss him, was arrested for “disorderly conduct” and fined $25 and costs. This she refused to pay, and was ordered to the workhouse.

Detailed stories of these arrests are given in the February 10^th issue of the Peacemaker, (10208 Sylvan Avenue, (Gano) Cincinnati, Ohio 45241). I hope that many of our readers will subscribe to the Peacemaker, since news of the conscientious objectors who are in prison and much other war-resistance news can be obtained there. Peacemakers have led in direct action for many years.

Wally and Juanita have both refused to pay income tax for many years, and it is of them particularly I wish to write, with the most heartfelt sympathy for their suffering and the greatest admiration for their dedication. It is their vocation to realize and to lead others to realize the horror of the times through which we are passing. Wally has explained that his fasting during the jail sentences he has undergone was the result not of wilful refusal but of a total inability to swallow food while imprisoned. Simone Weil, the French woman whose brilliant writings on man and the state, work and war, were widely published after her death, suffered during the second world war in the same way. She was literally unable to swallow enough food to keep her alive, in the face of world starvation.

In the stories of the saints, one reads of such sensitivity, such penances undergone, such fastings endured and they are little understood by the secular world. I am convinced that this vocation, this calling, to give oneself to one’s brother, in loving communion, in loving understanding of the heinous crimes that are being committed today was at the root of Roger La Porte’s immolation in front of the United Nations two years ago. It is as though such men said, “We will suffer with you, since we have no way of stopping the bombing, the burning, the napalm, the defoliation, the destruction of homes and an entire countryside. There is no act of ours extreme enough, no protest strong enough, to deal with this horror.”

Wally Nelson was in prison for thirty-three months during World War Two and fasted for a hundred and eight days (with forced feeding by tube) as a protest against racial segregation of prisoners. He had had time to think out his position while in Civilian Public Service camp, as forced labor camps which were set up for conscientious objectors were called. These very camps were a concession to pacifists, who had been imprisoned and brutally treated during World War One. But Wally decided to walk out and did so and was arrested and jailed. His example and that of other absolutists led to further concessions. In this present undeclared war in Vietnam, to which ten thousand more men were shipped off yesterday, the conscientious objector position is recognized, and paid employment is offered in home hospitals as “alternative service.” To accept this is still to submit to the draft, hence the continued protests against war, and the drafting of youth to wage this hideous struggle.

from “Ammon Hennacy: ‘Non-Church’ Christian” The Catholic Worker February 1970

[To Hennacy,] Obedience, of course, was a bad word. Authority was a bad word. In vain I pointed out to him that when the retired army major for whom he worked in Arizona told him to do a particular job, he did it, and he did it as he was told to. He admired the army officer because he knew farming. And he cooperated with Ammon in paying him by the day and thus evading the federal income tax which the tax man was trying to collect from Ammon.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker May 1971

I visited Art Harvey of South Ackworth, New Hampshire who has a mail order book shop handling a great number of books by and about Gandhi. Art and Ammon Hennacy served six month terms in Sandstone Prison in Minnesota for trespassing on a missile base some years ago. He carries on a practical application of Karl Meyer’s tax refusal (see article in this issue) by having teams of workers in orchards where they prune trees, harvest apples and later blueberries and work seven months of the year. They work and live in a style which frees them from the payment of taxes for war. Perhaps about a hundred are engaged in this way of life, which results usually in some settling in communities of the moshavim variety, each having some small acreage and a house built by themselves. Considering the New England climate, no small achievement! It certainly means an emphasis on the ascetic, on sacrifice.

from “On Pilgrimage: Russia II” The Catholic Worker October–November 1971

The other young man who visited Russia was Karl Meyer, who at present is serving his sentence of a two-year term (and thousand dollar fine) at Sandstone Federal Prison, for obstructing the income tax system by refusal to pay taxes for war. He had made the San Francisco-to-Moscow walk some years before, joining the march at Chicago. The walk ended at Moscow University, where the students, though not agreeing with the American visitors, demanded that the time of their talks be extended. He also distributed leaflets in Red Square!

from “We Go On Record: CW Refuses Tax Exemption” The Catholic Worker May 1972

The Catholic Worker has received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service stating that we owe them $296,359 in fines, penalties, and unpaid income tax for the last six years. As the matter stands right now, there might be a legal battle with delays and postponements which may remind us of Dickens’ Bleak House. Or, since we will not set up a defense committee to campaign for funds, it may terminate swiftly in the confiscation of our property and our bank account (never very large). Our farm at Tivoli and the First Street house could be put up for sale by government agents and our C.W. family evicted.

One of the most costly protests against war, in terms of long-enduring personal sacrifice, is to refuse to pay federal income taxes which go for war. The late Ammon Hennacy, one of our editors, was a prime example of this. He earned his living at agricultural labor, always living on a poverty level so as not to be subject to taxes, though he filed returns. Another of our editors, Karl Meyer, recently spent ten months in jail for what the I.R.S. called fraudulent claims of exemption for dependents. He ran the C.W. House of Hospitality in Chicago for many years, working to earn the money to support the house and his wife and children. Erosanna Robinson, a social worker in Chicago, refused to file returns and was sentenced to a year in prison. While in prison she fasted and was forcibly fed. It will be seen that tax refusal is a serious protest. Wars will cease when we refuse to pay for them (to adapt a slogan of the War Resisters International).

The C.W. has never paid salaries. Everyone gets board, room, and clothes (tuition, recreation included, as the C.W. is in a way a school of living). So we do not need to pay federal income taxes. Of course, there are hidden taxes we all pay. Nothing is ever clear-cut or well defined. We protest in any way we can, according to our responsibilities and temperaments.

(I remember Ammon, a most consistent, brave, and responsible person, saying to one young man, “For the love of the Lord, get a job and quit worrying about taxes. You need to learn how to earn your own living. That is most important for you.”)

We have to accept with humility the fact that we cannot share the destitution of those around us, and that our protests are incomplete. Perhaps the most complete protest is to be in jail, to accept jail, never to give bail or defend ourselves.

In the fifties, Ammon, Charles McCormack (our business manager at the C.W.), and I were summoned to the offices of the I.R.S. in New York to answer questions (under oath) as to our finances. I remember I was asked what happened to the royalties from my books, money from speaking engagements, etc. I could only report that such monies received were deposited in the C.W. account. As for clothes, we wore what came in; my sister was generous to me — shoes, for instance.

Our refusal to apply for exemption status in our practice of the Works of Mercy is part of our protest against war and the present social “order” which brings on wars today.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker June 1972

In the May issue of The Catholic Worker I wrote of the crisis The Catholic Worker found itself in when we received a letter from the Internal Revenue Service stating that we owe them $296,359 in fines and penalties and unpaid income tax for the tax years, 1966 through 1970. This was a very impressive bill, and we wondered what it would be if they started figuring out what they thought we owed them from the years 1933, when we began, up to 1966!

The New York Times, in a story signed by Max Seigel, with a four column head and a picture of a few of us at lunch in our headquarters at 36 East First Street, brought our situation to the attention of a vaster group of readers, and followed up the story with an editorial [“Imagination, Please” 24 May — excerpt: “Surely the IRS must have genuine frauds to investigate. Surely there must be some worthwhile work this agency could be doing instead of obstructing acts of corporal mercy for the poor.”]. The New York evening Post also editorialized on our situation. The National Catholic Reporter and the Commonweal editors also registered their protest and other papers followed suit. Letters come in daily from our friends, reassuring, comforting, indignant at the government, a few of them indignant at us, that we cause them so much worry. We certainly are grateful and must apologize that we cannot keep up with the mail and get them all answered.

There is not any real news for them at the moment, nor will be until our July–August edition of The Catholic Worker. I will have to appear before a Federal Judge on July 3 to explain why the CW refuses to pay taxes, or to “structure itself” so as to be exempt from taxes. We are afraid of that word “structure.” We refuse to become a “corporation.”

We repeat — we do not intend to “incorporate” the Catholic Worker movement. We intend to continue our emphasis on personal responsibility, an emphasis which we were taught from the beginning by Peter Maurin who used to quote Emmanuel Mounier’s Personalist Manifesto, and his Personal and Communitarian Revolution, Peter was our teacher, and being a Frenchman, a peasant, he emphasized decentralization, manual labor, voluntary poverty.

Voluntary poverty meant that everyone at the CW worked without salary, and contributions came from them, and from our readers, which kept the work going.

Rumblings first came from the Internal Revenue service after many on the CW staff, together with other peace groups, demonstrated against war in the Fifties and Sixties and were jailed for Civil Disobedience. Writing about jails and courtrooms resulted in much publicity. But it was Ammon Hennacy and Karl Meyer who wrote most consistently on Tax Refusal, and its importance. “Wars will cease when men refuse to pay for them.”

…And while you are at it, write to TAX Talk, published by War Tax Resistance, 339 Lafayette St., N.Y., N.Y. 10012 which contains letters from all over the country from individual tax resisters, telling what is happening to them. Stimulating and invigorating. Good make up and good format. First Rate.

While I write, Arthur J. Lacey comes in to hand me my mail and it contains a notice from one of our two lawyers. “Please be advised that I have been contacted by the Conference Section of the Internal Revenue Service and we have arranged for the hearing on September 7, 1972.”

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker July–August 1972

Good news first! On July 11^th we received absolution from the U.S. Government in relation to all our tax troubles. In the May Catholic Worker this year we told of the notice we had received — that we owed the government nearly $300,000 in back income taxes which included penalties for “late filing and negligence.” The examining officer of the Manhattan District had arrived at these figures through the reports we had obediently made to Albany on our appeals for funds, which we send out once or twice a year. We accept this compromise with our local state because we are decentralists, personalists, anarchists (in addition to being pacifists). When we first thought about Federal income taxes, most of which go for war or “defense,” we simplistically considered ourselves exempt because we had no income; no salaries are paid at the Catholic Worker, nor ever have been since we started in 1933. I myself have been questioned because of my writings, and lecture fees which were not really fees but offerings made to the work which covered all expenses of travelling and supported the work besides. A crowd of people living together as we do, in houses of hospitality, has to give something of an account to each other as to how well we are living up to our profession of voluntary poverty. We are always bound to have healthy guilt feelings about that, and keep trying to do better. Certainly a number of us do work on the side to provide what we need for books or rent on cheap apartments in the neighborhood, since our house at 36 East First Street is always so crowded.

But with the growing tax resistance throughout the United States, the government has become concerned. Telephone calls and official visits made us realize that trouble was impending. And we have been having it and have reported on it in both the May and June issues of our paper.

Now we are happy to report the outcome. In a conference in late June with William T. Hunter, litigation attorney from the Department of Justice, one of the Assistant Attorney Generals of the United States, we reached a verbal settlement couched in more human and satisfactory terms than the notice we later received.

“They” were willing to recognize our undoubtedly religious convictions in our conflict with the state, and were going to drop any proceedings against us. They had examined and looked into back issues of the Catholic Worker, and they had noted the support we had from the press (the New York Times news story and the editorials of the Times and the New York Post), and had come to this conclusion that ours was a religious conviction. They had come to the conclusion also that it was not necessary that the Federal Government seek for any other kind of a “conviction” against us.

The conference took place in a law office in Manhattan, 9:30 of a Monday morning. John Coster, our lawyer, Mr. Hunter and Ed Forand, Walter Kerell, Patrick Jordan, Ruth Collins and I attended. There were no hostilities expressed. As peacemakers we must have love and respect for each individual we come in contact with. Our struggle is with principalities and powers, not with Church or State. We cannot ever be too complacent about our own uncompromising positions because we know that in our own way we too make compromises. (For instance, in having a second-class mailing privilege from the government we accept a subsidy, just as Mr. Eastland does in Mississippi! [This refers to Senator James Eastland, who was a beneficiary of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in federal cotton subsidies, overseen by a Senate committee he sat on.])

It was Jesus who said that the worst enemies were those of our own household, and we are all part of this country, citizens of the United States and share in its guilt.

Yes, we would survive, I thought to myself, even if the paper were eventually suppressed and we had to turn to leafleting, as we are doing now each Monday against the I.B.M. Wall-Street offices, trying to reach the consciences of all those participating by their daily work in the hideous and cowardly war we are waging in Vietnam.

I must not forget the beautiful young ghinkgo tree which we purchased from the city last year, and which we planted in honor of Carmen Mathews, herself a great lover of the countryside (and of drama). She rescued us from a foreclosure when a first mortgage fell due and so has become part of this house on First Street, and of the bits of greenery back and front of it. The fact that prisoners on Riker’s Island so I have been told, grow these trees which brighten our streets makes that tree especially dear to me. When I pass it, I make the sign of the cross on its bark, to encourage it to grow fast and strong. Maybe we can plant another this year in gratitude to God for saving us from the hands of the tax gatherers. Fr. McNabb, the French Dominican, said that when Jesus left his apostles, “Peter could go back to his nets, but Matthew could not go back to his tax gatherings.”

Letter from the Internal Revenue Service:

From: District Director, Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, PO Box 3100, Church St. Station, New York, N.Y., 10008

To: The Catholic Worker Movement, 36 East 1^st Street, New York, N.Y. 10003

July 11, 1972

Gentlemen:

After examining your financial records and reviewing your activities for the above years, we find that you are not required to file annual returns for the years shown, and no further action is necessary regarding the proposals in our letter of January 17, 1972.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,
District Director
Form L-259

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker January 1973

…of our own conflict with the IRS. We live in what we can only regard as a temporary truce. We have not applied for or received tax exemption. The letter we received (and published) from the N.Y. State Offices of the IRS stated:

After examining your financial records and reviewing your activities for the above years (1966–1970), we find that you are not required to file annual returns for the years shown, and no further action is necessary regarding the proposals in our letter of January 17, 1972.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely yours,
District Director
Internal Revenue Service

The Washington official representative who met with us conveyed to us the respect they held for our religious principles and assured us that the presented bill for almost $300,000 could be ignored. The matter would be dropped, it was indicated (but, “for the present” was the qualifying clause in my own mind).

Mr. Nixon’s first statement that he would attack the problem of “permissiveness” was a warning note. The jailing of newspaper reporters, the Ellsberg trial — in fact, any criticisms of government policies or actions was going to meet with repressive measures.

The tax refusal movement all over the country grows. The conflict between State and people is coming out into the open here in the United States. The Totalitarian State is not just Germany (Hitler), Italy (Mussolini) and the USSR (Stalin), but is here and now with the “all encroaching State” as our Catholic bishops once called it, involving China and ourselves, as well as Russia.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker February 1974

We assure our readers that we try to get rid of our gifts as fast as they are given to us. But the threat still hangs over us of prosecution for not paying income tax. We are not tax-exempt. On principle we refuse to pay income tax, because so great a portion goes for wars, preparation for wars (defense, it is termed), and providing other countries with billion of dollars to buy our instruments of war and material and plants to make their own. There is a sizable movement truly the foundation of the peace movement which is based on tax refusal. (Contact Robert Calvert, War Tax Resistance, 912 E. 31^st St., Kansas City, Mo. 64109.)

Our refusal goes deep. Our motivation is fundamentally religious. We are told by Jesus Christ to practice the works of mercy, not the works of war. And we do not see why it is necessary to ask the government for permission to practice the works of mercy which are the opposite of the works of war. To ask that permission to obey Christ by applying for exemption, a costly and lengthy process, is against our religious principles. It is an interference of the state which we must call attention to again and again. A father who educates a young man or woman other than a blood relative is taxed for his generosity. A poor family who takes in another poor family (as many of them do in time of unemployment or crisis), cannot count that as tax deductible. Of course the poor suffer from the withholding tax which is taken from their weekly pay. To understand their rights, they must plough through booklets and forms put out by the government (which I am sure I could not manage to do) before they are able to collect money at the end of the year which is owing to them due to some change of circumstance. To get the advice of the Internal Revenue Department means standing in lines, paying excessive fares by bus or subway, with generally little redress of their grievances.

(A cheering note for us, with our very large family, which seems to increase day after day, is that when confronted by the government forces not long ago, Washington representatives from the Department of Justice were willing to concede that we were not making profits out of the poor, that we were motivated by religious principles, and that they would so notify the New York offices of the Internal Revenue Dept. which had handed us a awful bill for taxes due, along with penalties and fines, over a space of four or five years. The New York office then sent us a brief notice concluding that our income did not obligate us to file returns.)

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker May 1974

To talk economics to the rich and Jesus to the anarchists gathered in convention [a conference at New York’s Hunter College] these two days (and have to write this column) is a job. Besides, I did not “talk Jesus” to the anarchists. There was no time to answer the one great disagreement which was in their minds — how can you reconcile your Faith in the monolithic, authoritarian Church which seems so far from Jesus who “had no place to lay his head,” and who said “sell what you have and give to the poor,” — with your anarchism? Because I have been behind bars in police stations, houses of detention, jails and prison farms, whatsoever they are called, eleven times, and have refused to pay Federal income taxes and have never voted, they accept me as an anarchist. And I in turn, can see Christ in them even though they deny Him, because they are giving themselves to working for a better social order for the wretched of the earth.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker June 1974

Proceeded to the Kansas City, Mo. House of Hospitality and War Tax Resistors’ Center in adjoining buildings and run by Bob and Angela Calvert who are gardening every inch of the land in their front and back yards. It is much to the edification of the city block families and we hope their imitation.

Spent a Sunday afternoon with Karl Meyer and Jean and their three beautiful children, and all happy in the life of voluntary poverty where he receives an income low enough to be untaxable and so will not anticipate any more jail terms. His work is with the retarded in sheltered workshops.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker February 1975

Some of the best all around accounts of this ferment which is going on, among the young especially, is in The Peacemaker, 1255 Paddock Hills Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45229. This small packed newspaper deals extensively and specifically in works for peace, listing all those imprisoned for conscience — refusing conscription; one valiant woman is confined on Terminal Island for refusal to pay taxes (Martha Tranquilli, Terminal Island, San Pedro, Ca. 90731). All those activities which we Catholics call “works of mercy,” are also performed by many Protestant, Quaker, and other groups in the country.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker March–April 1975

I remember a young woman who came to help us years ago, who, after her first, early enthusiasm had worn away, used to sigh wearily and say — “What’s it all about?” I am sure many of our friends and readers also pose, more seriously, the same question. For instance, what are Ernest and Marion Bromley all about? Why is this frail, elderly man in jail right now for “disorderly conduct,” that is, for distributing leaflets about the nefarious workings of the Internal Revenue Service and their ways of penalizing people for advocating tax refusal. Remember, it is the Federal taxes paid by each of us that supply arms that are keeping wars going, I cannot go into the important discussion of Tax Refusal now. (Subscribe for The Peacemaker, 1225 Paddock Hills Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45229 or write to War Tax Resistance, 339 Lafayette St., New York, N.Y. 10012.)

What I want to bring out is how a pebble cast into a pond causes ripples that spread in all directions. And each one of our thoughts, words and deeds are like that. Going to jail, as Ernest Bromley has done, short though his stay may be, causes a ripple of conscience among us all. And of remembrance too.

Did they search him and list every item contained in every pocket? Did they strip him and search every nook and cranny of his body, as they did the young women arrested during the protests against air raids drills (psychological warfare) in the 50’s? As they are doing now to Martin Sostre in Dannemora prison even after every visit from friends or lawyers. What sadistic impulse is it that causes guards to continue these searches?

Ernest Bromley is sharing, in his (we hope) brief jail encounter, the sufferings of the world. And we hope, like the apostles, he rejoices in having been accounted “worthy to suffer.”

The Peacemaker, every issue, has a list of those imprisoned for conscientious objection to war. I was happy to see that Martha Tranquilli was due for release March 3.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker July–August 1975

The Peacemakers discussed, among other subjects like voluntary poverty, life styles, etc., the kind of demonstrations to show our determination not to pay income tax which goes for building up monstrous implements of war. Wally Nelson and his wife Juanita were there, both of whom are familiar with arrests and jailings. I got acquainted with them years ago when Koinonia, in Central Georgia, was literally under fire from the small-towners all around them.

Next issue, I will try to write more about federal income tax which is providing the weapons for war — why we pay local taxes and not the federal income tax. We recognize the seriousness of this and the risks involved for families. The Bromley case is an example. Their house was sold from under them in Cincinnati but they have not yet been evicted. The price paid was excessively above its value. It looks like the government is trying to make an example of them. (It was not bought by friends and given back to them — an erroneous rumor; the Bromleys would not have put up with a connived sale which would mean still more money going to the government for war.)

This is a good and historic case, involving as it does, simple, plain and powerless (?) people.

from “On Pilgrimage” The Catholic Worker October–November 1975

I’d like to call special attention to a story in this issue of the paper — it is Peggy Scherer’s story, on the front page, of the Peacemaker victory [the IRS surrendered in their attempt to seize and sell Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home]. (It is the completed story of the news box which appeared on page three of the last issue.) It is a story of gentle persistence, the power of Truth — faith in Truth (remembering that Christ is our Truth). He is the Way, the Truth, the Life.

Chuck Matthei had told me the story of his interviews with the head of the Internal Revenue Service, the almost daily dialogue that went on between them, and the frank and “manly” admission, made finally by the IRS chief, that a mistake had been made, that the Peacemakers had Truth on their side. I felt a great sense of joy and thanksgiving, a sense of hope too, that our officials in Washington D.C. could be approached in this way — with dignity and perseverance, with courtesy, with the recognition that we are all, each one of us, whether government official or radical (one who gets to the roots of things), children of God. We do believe that we are all brothers and sisters. We believe, too, that we can only show our love for God by our love for our brothers and sisters. So we share our joy with you, our readers, and hope we all have a sense of renewed strength and energy to continue our opposition to all violence, to all wars.

We point out that one way not to have to pay income tax, so much of which goes to the military, into stockpiling, into sales of weapons to other countries, is to seek more ways of living a life of voluntary poverty, to follow our Lord Jesus and his loveable servant St. Francis.

[Speaking of Pentecostal Christian groups on the Mexican border:] I could tell of other works these groups have done, but there is no space here. I only wish that the cause of peace, the rejection of war and service in the armed forces, and refusal to pay income tax could be part of their way of life. Jesus told us to love our enemies and St. Francis’ followers made a rejection of feudal service to the war lords of the time part of their religious commitment.

The following was reproduced without further editorial comment in the Friends’ Intelligencer, and is more good evidence of the decay of Quaker war tax resistance around the turn of the century:

The following report of Concord [Pennsylvania] Quarterly Meeting on January 29^th [1918], is taken from the West Chester Local News:

In reply to the suggestion made by one of the speakers as to whether Friends could consistently pay income tax, Charles Paxson said that there was a time when refusal to pay taxes to be used for purposes of war was the only way in which Quakers could bear testimony against this evil. Today there are many and more efficient ways. Friends are loyal to the government, even though there may be some points in which they differ from its present policy. Taxes are not all used for war purposes, and the refusal to pay them would gain nothing in point of principle and would do harm by being misunderstood and misinterpreted.…

I’m curious as to what Paxson meant by these “more efficient ways” of bearing testimony against war that had in his view made war tax resistance obsolete.

Some bits and pieces from here and there:

• First off, you may have heard some talk in the news about cuts to the Pentagon budget. You should be aware that it’s hooey. What the talk is really about is proposed reductions to the budget increases that the Pentagon had been hopefully anticipating. The Pentagon budget is still going up in both real and nominal dollars. This talk of “cuts” is like a sign in a store reading “25% Off our recently-doubled price!”
• Richard Cebula and Edgar L. Feige have attempted to estimate the size of the underground economy in the United States. They estimate that 18–19% of legally-reportable income in the U.S. stays under-the-table, which translates to about half a trillion dollars in taxes each year that the IRS fails to collect. The IRS itself hasn’t attempted to measure this underground economy since 1988.
• The Greek “We Won’t Pay” movement, which is resisting the stealth tax the Greek government imposed in the form of sharply hiked utility rates, has notched up a victory in court, winning an injunction preventing the utility company from shutting off power to resisters who have refused to pay the extra amount in their bills.
• Jerry DePyper has beefed up his Pro-life Strike Manifesto — which advocates tax resistance in the service of anti-abortion activism — since I last visited his site. It has a good overview of the whys and hows of tax resistance, with many parallels to the war tax resistance movement.

Human minds are subject to predictable optical illusions, which can turn concentric circles into apparent interlocking spirals, make still things appear to be moving, and so forth.

There are also auditory illusions, like the Shepard Scale, which appears to be constantly ascending or descending in pitch while in reality it just cycles through the same set of notes:

People are also vulnerable to regular, predictable, remarkable flaws in the ways we predict events, handle statistical data and uncertainty, remember our own lives, assess the quality of our information, anticipate what will make us happy, and so forth. These cognitive illusions are only recently undergoing rigorous exploration, and Daniel Kahneman is one of the top names in the field.

In Thinking Fast and Slow, Kahneman introduces his model for understanding these illusions. Roughly: people have two cognitive systems for evaluating information and making decisions — System 1 and System 2. System 1 is fast, intuitive, subconscious, and automatic, but is prone to some easily-exploitable biases and illusions. System 2 is slow, must be deliberately invoked, works consciously, and saps mental energy; while it can fill in some of the gaps where System 1 fails, it has some blind spots of its own, and can be over-reliant on the snap judgments of System 1 as the basis for its own decisions.

The ways in which our minds can be persuaded to fail to make the right decisions are not at all subtle. For instance, people who hold one hand in a painfully-cold container of water for 60 seconds before removing it, and at another time hold the other hand in a painfully cold container of water for 90 seconds that gets slightly less-painfully cold during the last 30 seconds, will later report — more often than not — that they would prefer to repeat the second of these painful experiences over the first one, even though the second one includes just as much pain and even adds to it.

Then there is the “halo effect” by which if we find something to be good or bad in some quality, we tend to bias our beliefs about its other qualities in the same direction whether or not we have any good reasons to do so. For instance, when Claire Wolfe reports:

When I was a kid during the cold war, I had this image of the Soviet Union as a place that was always gloomy — perpetually leaden skies, perpetually leaden people, gray and brown garb, no joy. Even as a young adult I had a hard time wrapping my brain around the idea that even in darkest Siberia they had sunny days. Or that Russians loved their country. Or wore bright colors. Or that they sometimes sang and laughed and danced and joked.

Even now, I have to make a conscious mental adjustment to picture unfree places having sunshine or joy. Or residents who burn with love for them.

Wolfe is describing this “halo effect.” Her perception of the Soviet Union as a repressive tyranny subconsciously colored her ideas of its beauty, colorfulness, and the capacity for joy in the people who lived there. The converse of this is that when we suffer from this illusion, we may look around at our beautiful, colorful, joyful surroundings and blind ourselves to the potential of unseen tyranny.

There are many such illusions, and Kahneman describes several in detail. Many more, one suspects, remain to be mapped out.

The marketing and propaganda industries are of course eagerly studying this new research into the various ways in which they can trick us into parting with more of our resources or doing more of their bidding while receiving less in return. (I was not surprised, but a little alarmed, to learn that much of Kahneman’s research has been done with the support of the Israeli military, the U.S. Office of Naval Research, and the Advanced Research Projects Agency of the [U.S.] Department of Defense.) We, the intended victims, are much slower to educate ourselves. Perhaps books like this will help.

I missed this when I was first composing this post, but Slate ran an article a couple of days ago about how the halo effect helps determine whom American voters elect as the U.S. government’s president. It turns out that looks are very important. Indeed, if you know what traits to look for, you can do very well at predicting the results of elections where you know nothing at all about the candidates except that you have a good head-shot photograph of them.

Here is some more news from the war tax resistance movement in Spain. This comes from the Canal Solidario site (translation mine):

First signs of support for the work presented by the Coordinator. Thanks “Blanquita”!

The group Coordinadora d’ONGD i altres Moviments Solidaris de Lleida [Coordination of Development NGOs and other Solidarity Movements of Lleida] participates in the Military Awards

The first conclusion from the awards organized by the Ministry of Defense is that the economic crisis has not reached everywhere. More than €45,000 in prizes for praising the activity of the Spanish military and the military life.

These figures outrage, but in reality represent only the crumbs from the table of military spending in Spain, which exceeded €17 billion in 2011.

Seeing as cuts in social spending (in cooperation, education, health, …) are emphasized in all administrations, we will try our luck in the “Military Awards.” The work we are presenting in the competition is “Tax Resistance, disarm your taxes,” and our dream is that, if the work sticks as a painting, we will win the prize for general painting (€7,000) in order to spend this money to spread the word about the tax resistance campaign that we are about to launch. You can support us on Twitter using the hashtag #EjercitoSinCrisis [economic crisis-free military]. Wish us luck!

Daily military spending in Spain: €47.24 million

During 2011 there was €17,244,750,000 of military spending (source: Report 7: The truth about 2011 Spanish military spending, Delas Center). Military activity is justified, even in times of crisis and social cuts, by the false idea of “security.” But, what if we would address international problems not from a military perspective but from the view of peaceful conflict management? Fewer humanitarian wars and more serious policies.

One option is tax resistance: the readiness to refuse to collaborate with the government in the costs of preparing for war and the maintenance of the military. It consists of diverting, in a simple way, a part of this tax to a project or organization that promotes the culture of peace.

During the Crimean War the British government hiked the income tax in order to raise funds to carry on the fight. This led to a debate amongst British Quakers over whether this income tax increase was a “war tax” that they should refuse to voluntarily pay.

Income Tax.

To the Editors of The British Friend

Esteemed Friends, — Doubtless many Friends have seen and read the Act of Parliament, passed in the last session, for increasing the Income Tax, yet I should think by far the greater majority have not done so; especially as the act was not passed until the holding of the Yearly Meeting. I have thought if the accompanying extracts were published, a more extensive and correct knowledge of the tenor of the act would be obtained, and might lead Friends to consider whether it be right for them to pay such tax.

If these views coincide with yours, the insertion of the accompanying will be esteemed.

William Wood.
The Retreat, York, 1^st Month, 24^th, 1855.

Extracts from the Act passed in 6^th Month, last.

We, &c., the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, towards raising the supplies to defray the expenses of the just and necessary war in which your Majesty is engaged, have freely and voluntarily resolved to give and grant unto your Majesty the rate and duty hereinafter mentioned.

6^th. This Act shall commence and take effect from and after the 5^th day of April, 1854; and, together with the duty therein contained, shall continue in force during the present War; and until the 6^th day of April next after the ratification of a Definitive Treaty of Peace, and no longer.

At the London Yearly Meeting, in May, 1854, this war tax was on the agenda, as The British Friend reported:

An attempt was also made to elicit some authoritative opinion in reference to the Income-tax, this having been imposed, as expressly stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the purpose of enabling this country to carry on the war. The question raised was, whether, as a Society, we could, in consistency with our well known testimony against all war, pay this assessment. Reference was made to the minuteness with which the Society inquired into infractions of our Testimony against tithes, till it seemed impossible to discover, in some instances, whether they had the most remote bearing on our Testimony in this respect. In the Income-tax, however, were we to pay it unhesitatingly, it appeared to be the opinion of the two or three individuals who introduced the question, that we should be decidedly violating one of the most important of our Society’s testimonies; and it was therefore desirable that the Yearly Meeting should pronounce distinctly what was the duty of our members in regard to the payment of this impost. The whole subject was at last referred to the Large Committee; and, to allow of its having time for interchange of sentiment, the meeting adjourned about half-past six, when the said committee came together, and sat till after eight o’clock, having before it the consideration of the returns of tithe distraints, &c., and subsequently the disposal of the question last referred to, when the conclusion arrived at was, to frame a paragraph expressly bearing upon it in the general Epistle.

I found what I think were the “general” epistles for 1854 through 1856 on-line. The last two are vague on the subject of war taxes, which suggests that those meetings were unable to come to a consensus on recommending a particular course of action. The 1855 epistle merely noted that the meeting had “been introduced into very solemn and painful feelings” and had issued “an Appeal to our fellow-countrymen on this deeply affecting subject” (of the war, not of war taxes) and recommended that Friends should “so watch over their own spirits that they may be preserved from in any way countenancing the war-spirit either in conduct or conversation,” which could only be interpreted as a call to war tax resistance by those who were already convinced along those lines. The 1856 epistle was even weaker: because the Crimean War was over by that time, most of the references to war were thanksgiving for the end of the latest one.

The 1854 epistle was more explicit, saying that:

no plea of necessity or of policy, however urgent or peculiar, can avail to release either individuals or nations, from the paramount allegiance which they owe unto Him who hath said, “Love your enemies.” … Let us honestly examine our own hearts, whether we are ourselves so brought under the holy government of the Prince of Peace, as to be willing to suffer wrong and take it patiently, and even, if required, to sacrifice our all for the sake of Him and his precious cause.…

Under existing circumstances, we would entreat our friends everywhere to be on their guard against entering into any engagements in business, which would be likely to involve them in transactions connected more or less directly with the maintenance of war or of a military establishment.

Still not a straightforward advocacy of war tax resistance, but more in harmony with it.

And it came to pass in 1896 that there went out an ordinance from Her Majesty the Queen of England that all the territories adjacent to the Colony of Sierra Leone should be taxed.

This tax, though similar to ones that had been successfully imposed in other imperial “protectorates,” was resisted, and led to a violent rebellion and then to a crackdown in which dozens of Hut Tax rebels were hanged and hopes for the independence of Sierra Leone from foreign rule were, for decades, frustrated.

Most of the summary I’m giving here today is based on the Report By Her Majesty’s Commissioner and Correspondence on the subject of the Insurrection in the Sierra Leone Protectorate, 1898, issued on this date in 1899, which is very critical of the colonial administration, but which necessarily has a pro-imperialist bias (the Commissioner’s commission came from Her Imperial Highness after all).

The British coalesced the coastal African colony of Sierra Leone, and its adjoining inland “protectorate,” by negotiating with individual kings of the many small political groups native to the area. These negotiations usually culminated in a treaty signed by the local king and the colonial governor that ceded certain rights over territory to the British in return for protection (including mediation and sometimes military intervention in inter-group conflicts) and often a periodic payment by the empire to the native king.

The British also made some effort to combat the still-ongoing slave trade in the area. This, to the residents, was a mixed blessing depending on whether they had been prey or predator. The fortunes of some local elites had been made in the slave trade when it was still being encouraged by Britain, and slavery had also become a local institution — with a large percentage of the population of the protectorate being slaves. The British by this time were actively suppressing the slave trade, having had a change of heart about their own former pro-slavery politicies about a century prior, but they didn’t try to abolish slavery in the protectorate or to free those currently enslaved there. However because the British legal system did not recognize the validity of slavery, it wouldn’t treat enslaved people as property to be reclaimed if they did manage to escape to a British-controlled area, and some of the kings complained that their slaves were taking advantage of this to escape.

The British used this half-hearted effort to combat slavery in Sierra Leone as a moral prop, much in the same way that modern American imperalists in the middle east will pretend to care about women’s education in Afghanistan or the rights of the Marsh Arabs in Iraq when the occasion calls for crocodile tears.

Sierra Leone’s importance to the British was in part because it was “the only suitable coaling station England possesses on the west coast of Africa.” It does not seem to have been otherwise a great source of benefit for England, not having known mineral resources of much use then, or agricultural exports worth getting excited about; but in the Monopoly game that was the imperialist scramble for Africa, it was better to have poor colonies than no colonies at all. Before the Hut Tax that was scheduled to go into effect in 1898, the colony’s revenue came from customs duties.

The British colonial rulers had deputized some natives to be imperial “Frontier Police,” but in a classic imperial snafu, these more-or-less completely unsupervised police, because they had no particular investment in the British project or the reputation of the empire, tended to use their authority to settle old scores, shake people down, and take untoward sexual liberties with those they lorded over. There seemed also to be instances of gangs impersonating Frontier Police in order to assume these same advantages. Because they did all this as de facto representatives of The Queen of England, and often represented themselves as imperial judges and legislators as well as cops, their abuse or assumption of power reflected back on the Empire and made it harder for it to get respect.

In addition, the colonial government relied on the Frontier Police when it was trying to collect the tax or to take reprisals against tax-resisting groups or kings. Even worse, when the colonial government justified the tax to the people in the area harassed by the Frontier Police, it did so by saying the money was necessary in order to finance this largely unappreciated police force.

The 1896 Protectorate Ordinance that instituted the Hut Tax also gave the colonial administration greater powers than before — and by fiat, marking a striking change in attitude by the empire toward the kings that it had previously been negotiating with. Provisions of the new ordinance included “limiting the forensic jurisdiction of the Chiefs [kings]… enabling the Governor to unmake and make Chiefs, to banish persons from any part of the territories without any charge and without opportunity of a hearing or defence, and… imposing taxes”

Almost immediately as word of the ordinance got out, petitions came in from a variety of groups asking that it be rescinded. The Hut Tax in particular was described as onerous and impossible for poor people and villages to pay, as well as an outrage against the institution of private property: “our own true fear is that paying for our huts naturally means no right to our country” (or, as another aboriginal political scientist patiently explained: “Paying for a thing in our country means that you had no original right to it; so it seems as if they had no right to their houses.”)

When the government, disregarding these complaints, began collecting the tax, perhaps because it had been forewarned by all of this petitioning it “came to the conclusion that the exercise of force, peremptory, rapid, and inflexible, was the element to be relied on in making the scheme of taxation a success.” This was because without “a good show of force in the shape of Police in each of the districts in which the collection is to take place, the natives may passively resist the authorities collecting the tax, and do all in their power to evade it.”

Colonial district commissioners would summon together the kings in a district, ask them to pay up, then arrest them and hold them hostage if they refused or were unable — imprisoning them until they or their subjects coughed up the tax as a ransom, or sentencing them to hard labor for their refusal. These acts, though done by colonial district commissioners and not by the even more arbitrary Frontier Police, were no less extra-legal (the law provided only for property levies against non-payers, not arrest or criminal prosecution, except in the case of fraud in which case the punishment was only to be a fine). The commissioner who wrote the report on the Hut Tax War says bluntly: “The arrests and imprisonments were not legal under the law of the Protectorate Ordinance, or any other law under which the District Commissioner was authorized to act.” Later, this became standard practice for the Frontier Police collectors: (“it seems indeed to have been taken as the proper practice to make the Chief or Headman of the town a prisoner in this way until the tax was paid”).

The humiliation of their kings, far from intimidating the populace, further infuriated them, and convinced them that the ultimate aim of the British was to destroy their own system of governance, take their land, and mine them for exorbitant taxes.

A king named Bai Bureh, in Kasseh, assembled an armed group, called “war-boys” in Chalmers’s report, which successfully defended him against an expected attempt to arrest him for refusing to pay the Hut Tax — an attempt that Chalmers labels “aggression pure and simple on the part of the authorities” — and thus the Hut Tax War began. Other angry kings and people, inspired by Bai Bureh’s successful action, rallied to his side. Chalmers is surprisingly sympathetic to the aims of the rebels at this stage, quoting a member of the colonial forces as saying of their own aims, “being unable to arrest him [Bai Bureh], we destroyed his country and that of other Chiefs also, whom we were unable to arrest,” while of the rebels:

The character of the war as on the side of the Native forces, except in two attacks upon Port Lokko and another upon Karene, was defensive, probably the only mode of fighting possible to them as against troops having European organisation. It is well to remember the fact that they waged no warfare except against the troops and Police. There were missionary and trading stations absolutely at their mercy; but there were no plundering raids, and not a trader or missionary was killed, with the exception of the missionary, Mr. Humphreys, who lost his life through persisting in pressing on upon a journey along a particular road against the warnings of the war-men, who told him that they could not permit him to pass, and it even appeared that in killing him the men acted of their own accord, and not by the order of any one in authority. Mr. Elba in narrating his interview with Bai Bureh said that he appeared to be sorry for the occurrence.

The actions of the Imperial troops, on the other hand, resulted in “the laying waste of a country of about thirty miles’ radius round Karene, and the destruction of 97 towns and villages, having an aggregate population of over 44,000.” Chalmers implies that Imperial troops and their Frontier Police allies cut a path of unprovoked and senseless destruction through the territories they passed through during a punitive expedition — murdering, kidnapping children, burning villages — and then falsified their reports to say that they had been responding to attacks by “war-boy” guerrillas.

Meanwhile, tax collectors even in more subdued areas were acting with brutality and impunity: “houses were broken down or burned when the tax was not paid… [or even] after the tax had been paid… Goods were distrained at under values. In many cases where the tax was paid, it was by means of money borrowed at high interest; the Police took whatever they wanted for their own use without payment; they used threats freely, even to use their rifles… it is impossible to do otherwise than conclude that there were very many examples of cruel and flagrant abuse of authority, utterly unsanctioned by the law.”

This in sum convinced many people in Sierra Leone that the British had determined to inflict an all-out, no-quarter-given war on them, and they decided to respond in kind. Over a few days “the male British subjects in Bandajuma, Kwallu, and Sulymah Districts, with few exceptions, were murdered. A number of women also were murdered, and after an order went forth from the leaders staying the killing of women, they were treated as captive slaves. All property belonging to British subjects was plundered…”

This included the English missionaries and missions, which had not before been the objects of hostility. Chalmers notes that “the missionaries at some of the Mendi stations had preached sermons shortly before the outbreak in support of the Hut Tax, and advising the people to pay the tax,” and suggests that possibly “the people considered [that] the missionaries showed by these sermons that they identified themselves with the Government, and had common purpose with the Government in the enforcement of the Hut Tax.”

An interesting section in Chalmers’s report concerns the anarchic instincts of the people of the area and how these were underestimated by the more thoroughly conquered British citizens who took taxation in stride. Excerpts:

[A] tax of the nature of the Hut Tax is unknown in native custom, and… it is highly obnoxious. With a great deal of prevailing loyalty to authority, the native African mind has a strong grasp of the idea of individual liberty, and a tax peremptorily imposed irrespective of the consent of the tax-payer is felt to be derogatory to liberty. Moreover no people has ever welcomed direct taxation or received it even with toleration unless they have become aware that the Government they are required to support brings to them reciprocal advantages worth paying for.

We must accept the fundamental fact that the Chiefs and people of the Hinterland of Sierra Leone have as yet only very slight knowledge of the English Government or its beneficent aims. It has been recognised by many of the Chiefs that the English rule is beneficial inasmuch as it has tended to allay and prevent inter-tribal raids, which are condemned by general native opinion. And they probably have some feeling of security from the hope of English protection if threatened by outside enemies. Beyond these advantages nothing tangible or intelligible has as yet accrued.

The advantages recognised scarcely suggest to the native benefits of a nature which ought to be paid for by compliance with a tax which they regard as oppressive and unjust in itself, and in the peculiar significance attributed to it, viz.: that it implied a taking away of the right of the people in their own country, and a taking away of the right of ownership in the houses, an implied meaning which spread widely and deeply.

It is said that those ideas can be got rid of by explanation. That of course depends on the patience, skill, and success of the officer who undertakes to explain; he would start with a strong prepossession against his arguments. It is true that Chiefs occasionally draw contributions from their people, but these are of the nature of free-will offerings for particular purposes known and approved of by the people, as in the characteristic instance mentioned by Captain Fairtlough — the coronation of a Paramount Chief, or other occasion for festivities. I have found no instance of a Chief attempting to raise anything of the nature of a regularly recurring revenue in this way.

• Chief Henry Tucker, a loyal Chief of the Meudi country, said, “The people are not pleased in paying this tax; they do not know what tax is. The place is newly made Protectorate. I think the Government ought to have given them a little more time to get used to it. Their houses are hardly worth four shillings [the Hut Tax was five shillings]… To us to pay the Hut Tax is quite a strange thing. That discourages them altogether… I knew it would not work smoothly. My mother and father never knew what tax was. People said whoever paid the tax would be killed. That showed very very strong feeling… Chiefs ask their people for contributions. Suppose, for instance, I wanted to visit some other Chief; I would leave it to them. They would give what they could; but to say they must give the Chief so much each year — no!”
• To nearly the like effect are some remarks of Colonel Gore, the Colonial Secretary: “I should have left them a little longer to see the results of civilisation. They are not enlightened enough yet to understand it. It might have been better to wait a little. We are taking all their power away from them now… I do not think they were given long enough to understand it. I do not think they have grasped it.”
• Chief Hanna Modu: “This Hut Tax affair is very great. Our fathers did not know anything about it. If they wanted it, they should have sent a letter to us to meet in one place and say, ‘We wish you to do such a work for us.’”
• Karene Chiefs: “If you come through the King we will do what we can, but not a yearly payment, for that would be the same as a tax… Our forefathers were good friends with the Government. What we hear now as to our own country where our forefathers lived, is that if we want to live in this country we must pay Hut Tax: we have only mud-houses covered with grass; if we want to sleep in that hut we must pay for it. Our forefathers did not sell their country to the Government, it was a friendship; what belongs to us belongs to you as a friend.”
• “If asked for contributions occasionally, we would do what we could.”
• “Government should say, We want you to help us with such an amount, but not to go and say, You must pay… Willing to give as a voluntary contribution; but it would be selling the country if the Government came and peremptorily demanded it.”
• “If Government asks us to give some rice for the Frontier Police; we will do what we are able, but to compel us to pay the Hut Tax, we are not able; if we pay for the house it does not belong to us any more.”

Seems to me they “grasped the results of civilisation” pretty well.

David Chalmers’s report, which amounted to an indictment of the policy of the colonial government, and cast the blame for the war and the massacres that resulted on the ineptitude, clumsiness, brutality, and extralegal overreach of the Hut Tax and its enforcement, was not at all welcomed by the government that commissioned it. The story they wanted to hear was that the Hut Tax War was “the result of an inevitable conflict between ancient barbarism and advancing civilisation,” nobody’s fault but of the child-like natives who, unable to comprehend that the benefits of their colonization would have to be paid for, threw a tantrum in the classic manner of unchristian savages everywhere.

Chalmers died in mid-1900, about a year after his report was presented to Parliament, at which time his report was already being savaged by anticipatory attacks from its targets and their defenders in the British government. The backlash reminded me of what happened more recently when General Antonio Taguba released his insufficiently-whitewashed report on the Abu Ghraib prison abuse.

Chalmers’s recommendations, which largely amounted to treating the people of Sierra Leone with respect to their human dignity — not in repudiation of the imperialist project, but in order to live up both to its oft-pretended ideals of extending the blessings of civilization and to its promise of financial and strategic rewards to the empire — were largely ignored, and the empire doubled-down on its “exterminate the brutes” policy.

From the Journal of the Life and Religious Labors of Thomas Scattergood comes this account from Great Britain on this day in 1796:

Set off pretty early, and rode nine miles to Grange meeting; five men and four women made up the meeting, when it separated for the transaction of business; the queries were read, and it was a very low time. The gallery where we sat appeared tumbling down, and a damp earthen floor. When the query respecting bearing arms and paying fines for war, &c., was read, an old woman openly acknowledged, after her husband said he had not paid such a fine, that she did; and made light of it, concluding it would not stand in her way.

Scattergood was one of those mentioned as having visited Samme Hunt during his imprisonment for tax resistance, in the journal of John Hunt.

He is remembered today as a mental health reformer. A Scattergood Foundation working to improve behavioral health is named after him, as is The Scattergood Program for the Applied Ethics of Behavioral Healthcare.

In an earlier journal entry, from February 1793, Scattergood showed how he considered the official plunderers in uniform to be common criminals — sinners in need of repentance:

…went to S.M.’s, where we had a religious opportunity, which I hope will not soon be forgotten by either parents or children. This family, amongst many others in these parts, were robbed and spoiled in the time of the late war. Their house was burnt, and one of the children told us, that a man who was instrumental in spoiling their goods, was at meeting last Fourth-day week, in which I had to speak to murderers, thieves, &c., and pointed out to them the necessity of endeavouring to do all in their power to make restitution. The child observed that he seemed much brought down, and his lips quivered.

This would have been somewhere in America — Georgia, I think. Scattergood didn’t leave for Great Britain until the following year.

The Friends’ Intelligencer for this date in 1901 summarized some news from the Woman’s Journal as follows:

Mary Anthony’s Protest

Miss Mary S. Anthony, of Rochester, N.Y., who not long ago subscribed the last $2,000 needed to secure the admission of girls to the University of Rochester, has notified the county treasurer that she will refuse to pay her taxes, on the ground that she is not permitted to vote, and that there should be no taxation without representation. Miss Anthony is that sister of Susan B. Anthony of whom a relative once said, “Susan could always preach, but Mary practices.” In Rochester alone 9,991 women pay taxes on $28,672,974 worth of property.

In answer, it is pointed out that minors, aliens, idiots, and insane persons are taxed, yet not allowed to vote.

Apparently, Anthony later dropped her refusal and decided to pay under protest instead — enclosing letters of protest to the City and County Treasurers’ offices with her checks.

Some years back, Cindy Sheehan, furious at the war that had killed her son, and increasingly upset at government deceit, decided to withdraw her financial support from the federal government by resisting taxes.

She chose to refuse to file returns — completely withdrawing her cooperation from the IRS. The IRS has since called her on the carpet and asked her to tell them details about her assets (so they can decide what to seize). She has also refused to comply with this.

In a recent post on her blog Sheehan discusses her case, and also some of the criticism she has been getting from pro-tax American liberals.

Even in the years that they are trying to collect 105k in back taxes, fines, and interest, I re-invested most of the money I ever made by speaker’s fees, donations, or book sales right back into the movement. Now, I intentionally live simply and don’t own anything the establishment considers of value. If the IRS goes looking for my assets, they will not find anything. If I had some kind of secret trust fund, I certainly wouldn’t be scraping by for rent money every month.

I don’t own anything and I don’t want or even need to own anything that the 1% tells me that I need to own to make my life “worthwhile.” I have had to pare my life down to one that is oriented, not around things, but around ideas, people, activism, peace and mostly, love.

According to the Irish Times,

A group fighting the new household charge are holding a meeting today at the Teacher’s Club on Parnell Square in Dublin to gear up their campaign for non-payment.

TDs Joe Higgins, Clare Daly, Joan Collins, Richard Boyd Barrett, John Lyons, Mick Wallace, Thomas Pringle and Séamus Healy, MEP Paul Murphy and councillors Ruth Coppinger and Ted Tynan launched a national hotline for their campaign against the household charge and water charge last Thursday.

The campaign has a website.

The International Year Book for 1900 included this summary of events in Catalonia:

The National Union Movement

The refusal of Catalonia to pay imposts, late in 1899, led to the formation of a committee of National Union, which assumed the direction of the widespread movement for reform. The greatest activity was displayed by the merchants of the northeastern part of the country, but the economic feature was not the only one. To some degree all the liberal elements in Spain sympathized with the National Union party, for its demands included the entire reorganization of the vital forces of the nation: fiscal and administrative reform, the amelioration of the judicial system, the introduction of an effective system of compulsory education, the improvement of the provincial governments. In view of the excessive burden of taxation and the government’s policy of expenditure the National Committee advised property holders to refuse to pay taxes. On January 14, 1900, 400 delegates, representing 50 chambers of commerce. 39 agricultural societies, and 37 mercantile and industrial associations, met at Valladolid and adopted the programme outlined above. The fiercest opposition to the Nationalists came from the upper classes and the clergy, who would wish to see the army aggrandized and secular education neglected. The government vigorously prosecuted the leaders of the National Union party and all who refused to pay taxes. In May riots broke out in Seville, Valencia, Polencia, and Barcelona. Martial law was declared in the provinces of Valencia and Barcelona, and on June 21 in Madrid. The constitutional guarantees were suspended in many other provinces, and at the end of the year had not been restored.

I think this was part of the same agitation that led to the “tancament de caixes” — an event that has the same sort of rhetorical value in Catalonia today as the Boston Tea Party does in the U.S.

A while back, Greek economist Varufakis Yanis explained the recent outbreak of tax resistance in Greece (translation mine, from a Spanish language op-ed):

The last recourse for stolen dignity

With his outrageous satire Can’t pay? Won’t pay!, the playwright Dario Fo incited the audience to rethink their political responsibilities. During the last two years, Greece has witnessed a spontaneous application of Fo’s title. It began with the nation’s highways, when drivers refused to stop at toll-booths, demanding that they be permitted to pass without paying. Their defiance was prompted by the appearance of reports in which they were informed that the previous government had sold the future earnings from the toll-booths to private investors using complex financial derivative instruments that had been designed by the bank Goldman Sachs. The idea that the money that Greek drivers should pay the government during the following years for maintaining the highways had been usurped by politicians and financeers aroused the anger that propelled these protests.

Later came the continual assaults against the dwindling savings of the population, determined by a government whose panic over its own bankruptcy led it to lose any sense of decorum. All households, including those of low income, have received tax notices in which were required additional taxes of a retroactive character, without any justification, and in a form that any decent court would have declared illegal. And when, in consequence of the destruction of jobs and of salary cuts, many people found it impossible to make these payments, what did this socialist government think up? The brilliant plan to introduce new taxes, this time by means of the electric bill, with which families were extorted from by being told that if they would not cough up their dough [soltar la pasta], they would have to cook over coal stoves while their children would do their homework by candlelight.

In this climate of total bankruptcy of the social contract between the government and the governed, citizens find it easy to say that justice requires tax resistance and civil disobedience. This movement does not start as something political. The I’m not going to pay is all about the result of a sad and simple inability to cope with the payment of more taxes. But when the state reacts with aggression and without scruple, anger accumulates and, spontaneously, takes the form of a crusade to defy the predatory state.

It is likely that this will not help to resolve anything. But at least the disobedience that we are seeing everywhere, from the courtyards of the nation’s schools to the toll-booths on the highways, from the headquarters of the electric company to Syntagma Square in Athens before the Parliament, could well be the only recourse that citizens have to reclaim part of their stolen dignity.

Some years back I noted Dorothy Day’s remarks on visiting a group of tax resisters in New Hampshire. Today I’ll try to track down some more information on them.

Arthur Harvey, then an organic farmer from Hartford, Maine, was profiled in Samuel Fromartz’s book Organic, Inc. because of his legal battle to make sellers who use the “organic” buzzword adhere to the genuine standards of that variety of food production. In the course of this, Formartz also mentions Harvey’s war tax resistance:

It was not the first time Harvey had gone up against the federal government. As a tax resister opposed to military spending, “especially nuclear weapons, and the export of arms and military forces to many places around the world,” Harvey had refused to file or pay federal income taxes since 1959. His wife, Elizabeth Gravalos, hadn’t paid federal taxes since the 1970s. Instead, they donated time and money to social service and environmental organizations. The IRS had come knocking at their door a couple of times, then seized the family’s property in 1996 and demanded $62,000 in back taxes and penalties — about three times the annual income of the farm. When they did not pay, the IRS took the rare step of auctioning off the property at a town office across the street from their house, with protesters outside. They initially lost the blueberry field to a bidder, though luckily no one bid on the house, perhaps because it had only rudimentary plumbing and no electricity. Eventually, Gravalos’s mother bought the house, and the couple’s daughter successfully bid on another parcel of the land, which she later swapped for the blueberry field. They were back in business.

Harvey, an affable and intelligent man with a wiry physique, perhaps owing to his vegetarian diet, said the lesson he learned from that fight was not to stop being a tax resister, but to avoid owning property in his own name that could be seized by the government. “We own a couple of cars, so I guess they could go after those, but they aren’t worth much,” he told me.

Aaron Falbel wrote about the blueberry-growing couple for the War Resisters League’s magazine in 1996:

War Tax Resistance and Blueberry Fields Forever

Arthur Harvey has not filed a federal tax return or paid income tax since 1959. His partner, Elizabeth Gravalos hasn’t filed or paid since 1972. Until recently, the Internal Revenue Service gave them little trouble.

“They visited us twice, once around 1965 and again around 1978, back when we lived in New Hampshire,” Harvey says. “Probably they concluded we had nothing much worth taking and perhaps were not subject to much tax anyway,” he adds. But after the Gravalos/Harvey family moved to Maine ten years ago, earned a bit more money, acquired a house, two wood lots and a blueberry field and started paying state taxes (New Hampshire has no state income tax, but Maine does), the IRS began to take notice. This past April 4, the IRS seized their properties in lieu of tax payments assessed at $62,000 (including interest and penalties) for the six years from 1987 to 1992 an astonishing figure, considering the family’s annual income from their blueberry and flower business averages about $16,000.

Going Once…

The IRS held an auction June 19 at the town office across the street from the Gravalos/Harvey home. “I might have cried if I were alone,” Gravalos admitted. But she was far from alone. About 75 supporters gathered outside the building and spoke of their solidarity with Elizabeth and Arthur. To demonstrate the power and the good that can come out of war tax redirection, Harvey, Gravalos and their family and friends raised over $3,000 to pay off the local property tax liens of seven Hartford residents.

The auction didn’t last long. When Gravalos and her family emerged stoically from the town office, she announced, “The good news is that no one bid on the house.” Emily Harvey, Arthur and Elizabeth’s daughter and a sophomore at Wellesley College, bid on (and won) the small half-acre wood lot on behalf of her younger brother Max. (Max, at age 16, was legally too young to enter a bid.) The town selectman and town clerk teamed up to buy the larger 21-acre wood lot, and another Hartford resident bought the blueberry field.

Harvey speculated that the reason no one bid on the house was that the minimum bid was too high: $21,000 for a house with no electricity or indoor plumbing. At the conclusion of the auction, the IRS declared that they would reevaluate the minimum bid and hold another auction July 16.

Going Twice…

The minimum was eventually set at $7,900. Gravalos and Harvey had originally discouraged friendly bids on their house, feeling that the price was too high. “We really did not want the IRS to get that much money,” Harvey said. But for the second auction, with a lower minimum bid, they didn’t discourage people who would buy the house back for them, even though that meant surrendering money to the IRS.

Harvey explained that what matters most for him is making a strong public statement, bearing witness to the government’s violence: “Our reason for non-cooperating with the IRS is a reluctance to support war preparations, especially nuclear weapons, and the export of arms and military forces to many places around the world. Others have gone a lot further in their war tax resistance than we have, and we honor and respect those people. For [them], the most important thing is to withhold money from the IRS at all costs.”

That, he acknowledged, is not his style of war tax resistance. “There are and there have been war tax resisters who have gone that far. My friend Ammon Hennacy [the legendary pacifist connected with the Catholic Worker movement] was one. Our approach is more complicated to describe and more flexible in practice.” He scoffed at a news article that described him as “unwilling to pay one penny to the IRS.” “We have three cars,” he noted, referring to the federal tax on gasoline that he pays every time he fills up at the pump.

About 35 supporters turned up for the second auction, this time held at the IRS office in Lewiston, Maine. Demonstrators read excerpts from letters to IRS officials and to President Clinton urging them to call off the auction. (As at the first auction, money was given away, this time to groups doing the kind of work tax dollars could fund: $500 to the local Abused Women’s Advocacy Project and $500 to a local chapter of Habitat for Humanity.)

Still Here

In the end, Elizabeth’s mother entered the winning bid for the house at $15,633. The town clerk and town selectman, who bid at the first auction, entered the only other bid of $8,000. The latter two were clearly miffed at having lost such a “bargain.” (One war tax resister described them as “a picture of greed thwarted.”) The clerk, clearly irate, asked, “Why was it okay for her [Elizabeth’s] mother to bid, but not for me?”

A week later, Arthur Harvey reflected on the clerk’s comment, questioning in turn the propriety of the town officials’ taking advantage of a family in a weakened financial position. “That does not seem to me to be a proper thing for a town official to do,” he said.

Elizabeth Gravalos thinks the answer to the town clerk’s question is obvious: “The two of them were trying to take our house from under us, whereas my mother was trying to help us out, to help us continue our way of life here.” Though Gravalos had dissuaded her mother from bidding at the first auction, she did not try to stop her at the second. “It was harder to lose the blueberry field [at the first auction] than I thought. I just didn’t feel I was ready to lose the house,” she admitted.

Harvey and Gravalos calculated that the house was worth somewhere between $10,000 and $15,000 and suggested that $13,000 would be a reasonable bid. Max and Emily were in favor of a friendly bid; Max especially did not want to have to move. “The alternative,” Arthur noted, “would be to go the Randy and Betsy route and not countenance a friendly bid and then risk eviction. We, as a family, decided not to go that route.” (He was referring to Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner, war tax resisters from Colrain, MA, whose supporters maintained an 18-month-long occupation/vigil after Kehler was arrested in 1991 and his and Corner’s house was auctioned off by the IRS.)

In the end, Arthur admitted, the auction “was something of a letdown.” The IRS got a fair amount of money, $39,460 in all more money, he speculated, than it would have gotten if the family had filed and paid taxes all along. Gravalos reflected, “Betsy and Randy did a better job at resisting the IRS than we did. But each family has to draw its own line. I really did not want to stage an occupation [as they did].”

So what does it mean for war tax resistance when the IRS manages to walk away with such a considerable sum? Interestingly, Gravalos and Harvey do not think of themselves as having failed. Along the spectrum of war tax civil disobedience, they are tax resisters rather than tax refusers. (War tax resisters do not willfully hand over money to the Pentagon, but if the government nonetheless forcibly seizes money from them, they take those lumps, as it were; war tax refusers tend to put up more of a fight and are unwilling to let the government collect any money or assets whatsoever.) But they believe both resisters and refusers provide witness to the backward priorities of the federal government. “When it comes to war tax resistance,” Gravalos adds, “anything is better than nothing.” Their 51 years (between them) of resistance to military spending and the redirection through the years of those war tax dollars is not to be scoffed at. And what of the future? Gravalos and Harvey do not hesitate when they are asked whether or not they will continue their war tax resistance. Says Arthur, “We will continue our stand of non-cooperation, but we will certainly make sure not to find ourselves in such a position where we own so much property.” And Elizabeth adds, “I do feel that the risks of paying taxes are greater than the risks of refusing to pay them.”

Philip Devles Broughton’s Ahead of the Curve: Two Years at Harvard Business School includes a few more notes of interest about Harvey:

• “He almost failed to graduate from high school after refusing to sign a loyalty oath to the laws and constitution of the United States. ‘I could support the Constitution,’ he said, ‘but I certainly wasn’t going to support all the laws. They told me I was failing the rest of the students in my home room. But I didn’t have much loyalty to my home room.’ Eventually the school gave him his diploma anyway.”
• “In Michigan, a man who had recently returned from India lent him a book by Gandhi. He was immediately struck by Gandhi’s arguments in favor of self-reliance and against excessive consumption. In the late 1950s, Harvey spent six months in prison in Sandstone, Minnesota, for invading a missile base in Nebraska with a group of fellow peace activists. ‘Prison was a blast. I was in there with one of my very best friends [Ammon Hennacy] and we played horseshoes and Scrabble and spent lots of time in the library.’ His tenure as library clerk ended when he refused to compile a list for the prison authorities of the books each prisoner was borrowing.”

A 1960 newspaper article on educational outreach efforts by the pacifist non-violent action group Peacemakers, quoted Harvey on the nature of the group: “We are a radical pacifist organization. We are against war preparationa and against use of income tax for war purposes. Our members also oppose mandatory registration for the draft. However, we are not communists. We believe the best defense is a strong spiritual one, in the tradition of the Indian leader Gandhi.”

The Sun-Journal of Lewiston, Maine, covered the 1996 tax auction in a pair of articles:

“Hands off our homes”

Couple protests on day before auction

by Mary Lou Wendell
Sun-Journal Staff Writer

Auburn — The message on one of the placards held by many of the 50 or so protesters marching down Center Street Tuesday morning was simple: “Honor family values. Hands off homes.”

Accomplishing their goal for the day was not going to be so simple, however. They were on their way to Lewiston to convince the Internal Revenue Service to halt the sale of property seized for nonpayment of taxes.

Arthur Harvey, who, before it was taken, owned the house and land in Hartford Center together with his wife Elizabeth Gravalos, led the march. In his pants pocket was a letter the group eventually hand-delivered to the Lewiston IRS office on Main Street after walking there from the Auburn Mall, which took about two-and-a-half hours. The note detailed the couple’s reasons for not paying federal taxes.

Funds collected by the federal government will “support war preparation of all kinds,” the typewritten letter read. “This is not acceptable to our moral and religious beliefs.”

In early April, IRS agents served Harvey and Gravalos with a seizure notice for their property, which includes a small home and out-buildings, a 13-acre blueberry field, and 21 acres of two combined woodlots. Selling blueberries and pansies, which is how the couple earns their living, brings in a total of $18,000 a year, Harvey said.

Based on those earnings, the government calculated Harvey and Gravalos owe $62,000 in unpaid taxes and penalties for a six-year period starting in 1987, according to the couple. A spokeswoman for the IRS in Boston said she would not confirm the amount owed because of disclosure and privacy laws.

Furthermore, the couple wrote in their letter to the IRS, “it is inconceivable that a family could be subject to a 49 percent tax rate, especially a low-income family including two children.”

Harvey and Gravalos have a daughter in college and a teen-age son, Max, who also marched on Tuesday.

IRS spokeswoman Peggy Riley did say the sealed-bid auction will go on as scheduled at 11 a.m. Wednesday morning at the town office in Hartford Center. And if minimum bids were offered, the house and property will be sold, she said. The minimum bid for the single family home was $20,476.98, Riley said. The total minimum bid for everything else, which is divided into three properties, is roughly $16,000.

Against a backdrop of car dealerships, retail outlets and quick-change oil places, the protesters, who came from as far away as Chicago, walked in groups of three and four down Center Street. Some came from New Hampshire and Vermont. Most were from Maine.

Many of the protesters were also war-tax resistors and friends with Harvey and Gravalos. Some had never met the couple but were marching to support their cause.

Sheila Dormody, a member of the 800-member organization, Peace Action Maine, pays her taxes, she said. But she had sympathy for Harvey and Gravalos because she opposes disproportionate military spending, she said.

As the group hiked along, making their way across the Longley Bridge and around downtown Lewiston, Dormody passed out red fliers decrying the practice of “bloating the Pentagon… starving our communities.”

“This year Congress will give the Pentagon $7 billion more than requested,” the filer stated. Education, mass transit, housing programs, job training and environmental spending are all the things that will be cut in order to pay for increased military spending, it said.

If the property is indeed sold Wednesday, “we’ll have to find some place we can rent,” Gravalos said as she walked. “I have a friend in Buckfield who has offered land so I can plant my pansies.”

Her husband thought it was a mistake to buy land, Gravalos said, adding he may have been right.

In hindsight, Harvey said, he would have preferred renting over owning property, which can be taken away.

But, while he and his wife have always paid their state and local taxes, he’s not sorry for not paying federal taxes, he said.

“We both understood the risk and we accepted it,” Harvey said. It’s a matter of “personal responsibility.” Withholding federal taxes is “a job that we can do,” he said.

Home survives IRS sale

Some of tax protesters’ Hartford property sold

by Judith Meyer
Special to the Sun-Journal

Hartford — As sealed bids were opened Wednesday morning, Arthur Harvey and Elizabeth Gravalos heard an Internal Revenue Service employee award three pieces of their property to others, but their home was spared, at least temporarily.

The couple, who are vocal about their resistance to paying federal taxes to a government that they say is spending irresponsibly, were served a notice of seizure on their property in April. That property was offered at a public sale in a sealed bid process inside the Town Office while a large crowd of supporters from throughout New England and reporters waited outside on the lawn Wednesday morning.

Harvey and Gravalos, who say they earn about $18,000 a year growing blueberries and pansies, owe the IRS $48,555 in unpaid taxes from 1987 to 1992. Their properties were seized to satisfy that debt.

Attending the bid opening were dozens of other tax resisters, including one couple who carried a large painted poster proclaiming their nonpayment of federal taxes since the 1950s.

The properties offered for sale included the couple’s home, which is not equipped with running water or electricity and which uses an organic compost septic system, a small house lot, a 21-acre wood lot and a 13-acre blueberry field.

No bids were submitted for the house, and a second sealed bid opening has been scheduled for July 16 at the IRS office in Lewiston. If the property is not sold at that time, said IRS agent Diane Santoro, who conducted the sale, the federal agency will re-evaluate the $20,476 minimum bid established for the property.

Bids were opened inside the Town Office, which was restricted to bidders, the property owners, town and federal officials and five media representatives chosen by Capt. James Miclon of the Oxford County Sheriff’s Department from a pool of reporters standing in the side yard.

The couple’s children, Emily and Max Harvey, purchased the small house lot for $727, using money 16-year-old Max had earned raking blueberries, beating out a $600 bid from the town of Hartford. Gravalos was visibly upset that the town bid on the property.

The Town Office stands directly across the street from Gravalos’ house on Route 140, and the piece of property the town bid on was being considered as a new Town Office site.

The couple’s wood lot was sold for $10,000 to Kathleen Hutchins and Linda Rowe, both of Hartford, beating out a $9,560 bid for the land. Hutchins is the town’s tax collector, clerk, treasurer and administrative assistant, and Rowe is a selectman, but both women said they bought the land as private citizens.

The third piece of property, the blueberry field that has been cultivated for the past eight years by Harvey and Gravalos, was sold to Alan Noyes of Hartford. Noyes, who left immediately after the bid opening, indicated that he liked the view at the property and would be willing to talk to Harvey and Gravalos about some kind of arrangement to continue farming the land.

Harvey said after the sale, which lasted less than 10 minutes, that he and his family intended to remain in Hartford, would continue to live in their home and would continue farming blueberries on fields they planned to lease from other property owners.

“The good news is that nobody bid on our house,” Gravalos told the crowd after the sale was finished, and Harvey expressed his pleasure at seeing so many people supporting their cause.

“This is not a victory or defeat for anyone,” Harvey said. “It’s just a part of life.” That observation drew a large round of applause from the crowd.

And although the IRS seizure is nearly complete, Harvey said his views on tax resistance haven’t changed and he has no plans to pay any money to the federal government. Harvey has not paid federal taxes since 1959, and Gravalos hasn’t paid since 1972.

Supporter Jim Stockwell of Albion said, “I think (Harvey and Gravalos are) very proud of what they’re doing.” Stockwell praised their resolve to stand firm for their beliefs against increased military spending and decreased spending for education and health care.

Lee Holman, a supporter and neighbor of Harvey and Gravalos, said the couple’s commitment to paying local and state taxes and resisting paying federal taxes comes from their desire to “redirect tax dollars to build real security in this town instead of investing in a false sense of security” with the federal government.

The couple can redeem their properties in the next 180 days if they pay the bid price, plus another 20 percent, and any costs associated with the sale to the IRS.

IRS agent Santoro declined to talk to reporters before or after the sale.

Along with that second article was this sidebar:

Anti-tax group pays off liens of five families

Hartford — The tax resisters who demonstrated in support of Arthur Harvey and Elizabeth Gravalos say they are not against America’s tax system in itself and support payment of local and state taxes to help their own communities. What they protest is the federal government’s use of the tax money, a use that they claim they have no control over.

In an effort to show support for the local property tax system, the group of resisters, who are calling themselves Spears into Pruning Hooks, walked into the Hartford Town Office just before the public sale of the Harvey/Gravalos property and paid off outseanding tax liens for five local families.

Harvey said the group paid nearly $2,200, choosing the liens to be paid off based on whether the property owner had children and actually lived in Hartford, rather than being a part-time resident. The tax resisters did not have contact with the property owners; the payoffs were arranged through the Town Office.

The group originally offered to pay seven liens, but only five were paid because two of the families declined the group’s offer. Tax Collector Kathleen Hutchins said the payment retired tax liens for property owners Joseph Bedard, Ann Carro, Penny Stubbs, Matthew Piantone and James Guilmet.

According to Hutchins, the property owners who declined the resisters’s offer of payment said they did not agree with Harvey and Gravalos’ stand on tax resistance.

Hutchins, who said the town has never seized any property for nonpayment of property taxes, indicated that there are others in Hartford who oppose the stand taken by the Harvey-Gravalos family.

Speaking for the group, which still has $800 in an account reserved for payment of other tax liens, Harvey said Spears into Pruning Hooks plans to continue raising funds and making goodwill gestures for struggling local taxpayers.

Harvey and Gravalos were still at it a decade later:

Federal income tax

Resisters keep incomes below filing threshold

by Kelly Morgan
StaffWriter

Hartford — While many people across the country will be rushing to meet today’s deadline for filing federal income taxes, Arthur Harvey will more likely be home binding books or working on the mowers he’ll soon use to cut his blueberry fields.

It’s not that the 72-year-old organic farmer, inspector and book seller has filed early this year. Instead, Harvey, who lives with his family across from the town office on Main Street, has not paid federal income taxes since about 1959. He won’t pay because he is opposed to where his dollars would be spent.

“My fundamental objection is to nuclear weapons,” he said Thursday while seated at a small table off his kitchen, surrounded by copies of the collected works of Mahatma Gandhi. “And also to sending U.S. military forces to other countries.”

Harvey and his wife, Elizabeth Gravalos, 61, have joined as many as 200 Mainers and 10,000 people nationally who refuse to pay their federal income taxes in protest of military spending.

“We say about 8,000 to 10,000 people,” said Ruth Benn of the Brookly, N.Y.-based National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee on Thursday, “but it’s really hard to count.”

Benn said many, like Harvey and Gravalos, keep their incomes low so they won’t have to pay. Many others protest by refusing to pay federal taxes on their phone bills, another action that’s difficult to track.

According to information from IRS spokeswoman Peggy Riley, who’s based in Boston, the federal government faces what it calls a “gross tax gap” of $300 billion a year. The gap, Riley explained, “is the difference between what taxpayers should pay and what they actually pay.”

Riley said the IRS does not track those who refuse to pay on the grounds of opposing military spending.

Personal property seizures and deductions from paychecks are tools the IRS uses to collect unpaid tax dollars. In 1996, Harvey and Gravalos nearly lost their home and 13 acres of blueberry fields they farm in Hartford. At an auction after the properties were seized, Gravalos’ mother bought back the house. Their daughter Emily later received back the blueberry fields in a trade after the man who had purchased them found farming difficult, Harvey said, laughing.

Harvey, Gravalos and their son Max continue to farm the fields today. They use wood heat and kerosene lamps and drive old Volvos. Harvey sells books on the teachings of Gandhi, which he purchases from India, through the on-line marketplace Amazon.com.

The only electricity in the house comes from a small solar panel that runs a laptop computer and, on sunny days, a copier in a back room.

Because Gravalos now works as a part-time massage therapist, she does pay Social Security taxes, Harvey said. But she hasn’t paid income taxes since 1972.

The two file separately, each having to earn less than $3,100 in order to fall below federal tax filing requirements.

Harvey and Gravalos have taken part in efforts of the War Tax Resistance Resource Center of Maine. People affiliated with the organization often hand out fliers at IRS centers on tax deadline day.

Larry Dansinger, a Monroe-based representative of the group, said Thursday that people are expected to be handing out fliers today from Portland to Ellsworth

He himself doesn’t pay federal phone taxes.

“In our calculations, about 50 percent of every (federal income) tax dollar that people pay is going either directly or indirectly for military purposes,” he said.

Not paying, he added, “is not a nice, easy thing to do.”

Pedro Otaduy, one of the leading figures in the Spanish war tax resistance movement, died Monday.

Internationally, Spain’s war tax resistance movement, like that of the United States, is unusual for its prioritizing civil disobedience (that is, actual tax resistance) over lobbying for the legal recognition of conscientious objection to military taxation. Otaduy regularly represented this point of view in international war tax resistance conferences organized by Conscience and Peace Tax International, of which he was Chair for a time, travelling on his own dime.

(Here is his report from the 13^th such conference, in Norway in 2010, and from the tenth conference, in Brussels in 2004.)

He was a veteran of the campaign to overturn mandatory military service in Spain and to get legal recognition for conscientious objection to military service there (which was not achieved until relatively recently — 1999) and he felt that the successful role of civil disobedience in that struggle should give us confidence in our battle against forced support of the military through taxation.

He also advocated for war tax resistance before the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 2005, and used the occasion to speak out about the struggles of conscientious objectors in Colombia, which was a cause dear to him. It is a shame that he will not be present at the next international war tax resistance conference, which is scheduled to be held in Bogotá, Colombia early next year, and will be the first such conference to be held in South America.

For the last few years I’ve been posting some charts that show how IRS enforcement activity is changing over time and also some charts showing how “delinquent” taxpayer activity was changing over time.

The IRS has just put out some numbers on its enforcement activity for 2011, so I can update the numbers. The number of levies and liens remain high, though off their peaks, while the number of seizures has risen to a recent high, though also much lower than in the bad old days:

The “delinquent” taxpayer activity charts will have to wait for their update until the IRS releases its “Data Book” later this year. Here is how they looked as of the 2010 numbers:

Some bits and pieces from here and there:

• Wendy McElroy, at The Freeman, gives an overview of the persistent tax resistance of Vivien Kellems.
• From an article about a crackdown on tax evasion in Italy:

  …Popular comic and political activist Bepe Grillo on Monday week [sic] described the tax collection office Equitalia as the “terror of every Italian” and said he could understand why an anarchist group had that very day sent it a parcel bomb.…

  La Repubblica newspaper quoted finance department data which suggest levels of tax evasion have leapt fivefold in the last three decades, with the treasury losing $275 billion in the last year alone.

Nereus Mendenhall wrote to Friends’ Review on this date in 1879 to correct the record about how Quakers fared under the governments of the Confederacy during the American Civil War. Some excerpts:

I do not hesitate to say that in my opinion the course of North Carolina and of the Confederate government was as liberal toward Friends as that of the United States government, or even more so. In the North the Friends were in sympathy with the government. It is supposable that they rejoiced over every Federal victory, and were sad at every Federal defeat. They could go into hospitals, they could do other service, they could pay the commutation money. Not so the Friends in the South. They had no sympathy with the Southern cause; they were opposed to the war, as Christians, as citizens, as men. They regarded every Confederate victory with sorrow, believing, as they did, that it but prolonged the bloody contest. And yet, under the knowledge of this well-known feeling, the Convention of North Carolina had such respect for the sincerity of their convictions that it passed an ordinance releasing them from military service on the payment (I think) of $100. And the Confederate Congress — that ogre, as some would regard it — clearly released Friends on the payment of $500 — $500 of Confederate money, even when the whole sum was not worth more than $10 or $20 in gold.

Which acted most in accordance with the principle of Friends in this matter, those who served in the hospitals, thus enabling the United States to keep as many fighting men in the field, or those who refused either to do this or to pay the trifling sum of $500 Confederate money, and thus acknowledge the right of the Government to tax us for our consciences, may here be left without answers.

The editor of the Review answered:

The Discipline of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting discountenances the performance of any military duty whatever by its members, or the procuring of a substitute. The Meeting for Sufferings also, soon after the civil war began, issued an advice that members should not pay the commutation tax in lieu of service. Although this was felt by many young men as going farther than their own consciences would require, we know of no instance in which such commutation was paid, or service in hospitals, etc., rendered instead of bearing arms, by any member of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Almost certainly the number of Friends in the North who adopted the measure proposed for their relief by the Government was very small. The number who abandoned the principles of peace would seem to have been proportionally much smaller than at the time of the war of the Revolution, when many Friends entered the army.