On Certain Abuses in Language [pp. 248-272]

O2V CERT,4TAIN ABUSES IN LANGUAGE.
fiscation. The other side as vehemently asserted that there was
no confiscation in it. But the arguments on both sides took for
granted that, if there was confiscation in the measure, the measure was condemned without going a step further. Now I venture to go a step further. What if the defender of the measure
had answered: "Yes, it is a measure of confiscation; but what
then?" What if he had gone on to say: "Confiscation may be
just or unjust, according to circumstances. In this case you
think it unjust; I think it just. Instead of using vague names,
let us argue the question of its justice or injustice." I believe
that, if any one took up this line of argument, a good many,
both of the friends and the enemies of the measure, would be a
little amazed. Yet the line of argument is perfectly sound. To
say that a certain bill is a "measure of confiscation" really proves
nothing for or against it. Of course it may happen that the
statement is false, that there is no confiscation in the measure.
Then, doubtless, the right argument is to show that the measure is not a measure of confiscation. But, on the other hand,
it may be that the measure is undoubtedly one of confiscation,
but of perfectly righteous confiscation. And then the right argu
ment is to show, not that there is no confiscation, but that the
confiscation is righteous.
Let us look at the history of the word. It is a word of
Latin origin, but it cannot be called a technical term of the
Roman polity or of any other. It describes a process which must
take place pretty often in every civilized community, whatever
be its -form of government. To confiscate is to take something
from this or that man, and to put it into the fiscus, the treasury
of the sovereign. This is constantly done by the state and its
officers, whenever any fine or forfeiture of any kind takes place.
As far as the origin of the word goes, it might be applied to
every case of taxation; in every such case the state takes
the property of A or B and puts it into the fiscus. But in all
free countries the taxpayer is held to be paying something which
he has, through his representatives, agreed to pay. The tax
therefore is not a penalty; it is each man's contribution, as a
member of the nation, towards a payment to which the nation
has consented. But it seems to be implied in the idea of confiscation that it should be the infliction of a penalty, or at least the
267