How you can resist funding the government → the tax resistance movement → birth of the modern American war tax resistance movement → Ernest & Marion Coddington Bromley

The documentary Paying for Peace: War Tax Resistance in the United States is now available on-line.

The film was made in 1991 by Carol Coney and features interviews with Brian Willson, Robert Randall, Holley Rauen, John Shibley, Karl Meyer, Ed Pearson, Vicki Metcalf, Ernest & Marion Bromley, Juanita Nelson, Maurice McCrackin, Randy Kehler, and Carolyn Stevens.

On the video, this film is sandwiched between segments of an earnest alternative media television program called “Alternative Views” that is, in this episode anyway, devoted to the October Surprise conspiracy theory. If you want to watch only “Paying for Peace,” skip ahead to about 16:20 and play through the 45-minute mark. Beware also the opening seconds of the video (outside of the documentary portion), which are marred by a high-pitched screech.

I just recently learned that the newsletters of the Syracuse Peace Council from 1936 to the present day are available on-line. This makes for an interesting historical walk-through of the concerns of the anti-war movements.

There are interesting bits of war tax resistance history to be found there. For instance, one newsletter from 1975 contains this article about the IRS seizure of Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home 33 years ago today:

Peacemakers Resist IRS Attack

Probably the most dramatic and blatant attack by the Internal Revenue Service on an antiwar group is before us in the Peacemaker Movement case… The basic facts are:

1. In 1972, IRS initiated an audit of the records of the Peacemaker Movement — a nation-wide community formed in 1948 and dedicated to radical nonviolent social change and simple living. IRS claimed that $24,671.31 is owed them by this non-profit organization. Initially, the claim was based on IRS’ listing the recipients of the Sharing Fund (those families receiving assistance from the Peacemaker while the wage earned is imprisoned for draft refusal and other similar acts of war resistance) as employees of the Peacemaker. When national protest forced IRS to drop this outlandish charge, they changed the figures slightly, and issued a revised assessment for approximately the same amount.
2. In an attempt to collect the taxes owed by the Peacemaker Movement on their non-taxable income, on Jan. 31, 1975, IRS seized the home of Marion and Ernest Bromley in Gano, Ohio. The Bromleys are long-time pacifists and Peacemaker activists. Their home is owned by a non-profit corporation, Gano Peacemakers. No financial or formal ties have ever existed between Gano Peacemakers Inc. and the Peacemaker Movement.
3. The audit of the Peacemaker accounts and the initial levy against Gano Peacemakers Inc. occurred while the Special Services Staff of the IRS was operating. The SSS was charged with conducting surveillance on thousands of radicals and anti-war activists. This has been documented by the US Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. There is conclusive evidence that Ernest Bromley was among those singled out by the SSS. The Sucommittee’s report “Political Intelligence in the IRS” (Dec. 74, p. 222) contains a substantiating memorandum. While Ernest’s name and the name Peacemaker Movement have been blanked out, there can be no mistaking whom is being targeted. The memo’s description of the group is taken verbatim from the masthead of The Peacemaker, the Movement’s newsletter.

IRS Auctions Bromley Home

Despite months of continuous picketing and leafletting in an attempt to force IRS to back off, the Bromleys’ home was sold on May 28 in a sealed-bid auction at the Federal Building in Cincinnati. The creative action of the Peacemakers and their supporters on that occasion spoke of the togetherness of the group and the absurdity of the situation. The day began with a silent vigil initiated by the local Quaker group. While the bids were being read inside the building, guerrilla theatre took place out on the sidewalk. At one point the Federal building was auctioned (offers ranging from 25¢ to 2 bottle caps). Several supporters present at the proceedings inside made brief statements about the unjust nature of the whole ordeal. Waldo the Clown was also there, face painted sadly, opening envelopes along with the IRS person. As the official read the bids and the names of the bidders, Waldo searched his envelopes and revealed their contents: a flower, a unicorn, some toilet paper, which he handed to different office people. Marion Bromley also spoke as the bids were opened, reiterating that the seizure was based on fraudulent assumptions, and that therefore the property could not be rightfully sold. A young child, belonging to one of the bidders sat under a desk, crying loudly during the event. The winning bid was $25,100, ironically close to the amount assessed.

Nat’l Call for Direct Action
Washington, DC Sept 2–3

What now? The Peacemakers have called a demonstration of nonviolent direct action at the national headquarters of IRS to demand the following:

1. an end to the IRS attack against Peacemakers;
2. a return of the Bromley House;
3. an end to all political harassment by the IRS;
4. publication of the secret SSS “enemies list”;
5. access for all groups and individuals to all IRS files relating to them;
6. an end to war taxes.

The stakes are high. They are: the house which has been the home of the Bromley family and others for 25 years; the very existence of the Peacemaker Movement and the Sharing Fund will be jeopardized if the false claim on which the IRS based its attack is not exposed and withdrawn; the freedom and future of all who dissent will be seriously threatened if IRS is allowed to make fraudulent claims and proceed against those who oppose government policies; the danger is particularly great for those people and groups who also oppose militarism and work for peace; concern is not only for the Peacemakers, but for us all.

You may be skeptical that peaceniks practicing guerrilla theater on the sidewalk and clowns fishing unicorns out of envelopes would get very far with their list of demands, but here’s the news from the next issue:

Peacemakers Win!
IRS Returns Bromleys’ Home

— We’re in a no win position. So we want to do what’s right. — That’s how IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander broke the news that IRS was wrong: the assessment against the Peacemakers was an error, and the sale of the Bromleys’ home would be reversed. The Peacemakers were informed of this late Friday, Aug. 29, just three days before the planned (and well publicized) Washington demonstration (and just after some of them had spent all day with mops and brooms cleaning up IRS).

IRS’s recanting came after months of persistent, day-in, day-out work by many people, but especially by the small Peacemaker collective that had moved into Washington to fight the case.

The non-bureaucratic response

The Peacemakers were resolute that their confrontation with the government would be on their terms. Believing that the legal system is an instrument of oppression and exists to protect the state and the property of the powerful, they refused to take their case into the courts. Instead they worked to make the truth known through personal meetings with IRS officials, through continuous leafletting, through appealing to their supporters country-wide to demand justice. They insisted on their right to retrieve their secret files from IRS (refusing to cite the Freedom of Information Act), they dissected the data and fought back with [it]. They put enormous energy into building relationships with IRS officials that would allow for honest dialogue. And always, they challenged and responded to the bureaucracy in a highly personal manner.

Initially it appeared that IRS’ reversal had been an act of faith in the Peacemakers; that it had been touched by the group’s philosophy of truth and their consistent methods. It wasn’t that complete a victory. The Commissioner had been sufficiently impressed by these people to where he called for a special investigation — which verified the Peacemakers’ statement.

Join us for lunch

The dropping of charges didn’t affect the call of the demonstration. There were still the issues of political intelligence and harassment, the enemies list and the secret files, and of course war taxes. The returning of the Bromley home did remove the urgency so that civil disobedience seemed no longer appropriate. Instead the dimension of celebration was added. For the two days preceding the demo, the thousands of employees at IRS were leafletted with the good news and an invitation to join us to celebrate at lunch — in the courtyard inside the IRS building.

But government agencies can’t or won’t trust. That day there were armed guards at the one entrance left open after the early morning arrival of the workers. Promptly at noon, we went to the door, bearing our bread and fruit, and once again extended our invitation to everyone from Alexander on down to meet us in the courtyard. Alexander refused the invitation and we were refused entry, so we contented ourselves with the front steps. We shared a brief silence, then enjoyed our food to the accompaniment of our country band of fiddles, guitars and a washtub. There was much gaiety with singing and dancing, there in front of the guarded portals engraved with “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society”.

8,000 enemies

Later, two of the Commissioner’s top aides met with us out on the lawn. Typical dialogue: What about the secret files? They will be destroyed as soon as Congress has finished all its investigations of IRS. If you think you are on the enemies list, write us and ask for your file. Why won’t you notify the 11,000 enemies of their select state? That would create paranoia. Paranoia? The government’s collecting intelligence data on 8,000 people and 3,000 organizations for political purposes was a very real activity. If the secret files are no longer active, why are copies on file in the district offices throughout the country? To recall them would focus attention on their contents and perhaps have the reverse effect. (In truth, the damage to people is irreparable until all IRS records are destroyed. For example, a common audit sheet on Ernest Bromley has a margin note — “house filled with hippies”.) How does it feel to collect moneys for death? We can’t all grow gardens in Ohio.

That evening, after nine hours of picketing, singing and leafletting, we evaluated the action. The same old problems were identified: we honestly had been at a loss to relate to the many IRS employees who had taken their lunch hour on the steps with us in the warm September sunshine (other than offering them our apples and leaflets). And in the afternoon discussion, had we not put too much emphasis on “cleaning up” IRS, ignoring the basic issue of its very legitimacy?

The Peacemakers have won an important victory, not only for themselves as a community, and for Ernest and Marion Bromley, but for all of us who must dissent.

 — Chris Murray

Most of the examples in today’s Picket Line can be found in greater detail in the book We Won’t Pay!: A Tax Resistance Reader.

A while back, I started looking for examples of ways tax resisters have organized mutual aid pacts to help diffuse the effects of government retaliation. In the course of doing the research, though, I started collecting examples instead of a larger variety of collective projects resisters and their sympathizers have used in support of tax resistance.

Here are some of the examples I found:

1. Tax resister “insurance”

   For instance, the Breton Association in 19^th century France, which organized to “form a common stock or fund… to indemnify the subscribers for any expense they may be put to by their refusal to pay any illegal contributions imposed upon the public.”

   Another example was the Association of Real Estate Taxpayers in 1930s Chicago, which formed a cooperative legal fund to fight an offensive legal battle against the tax.

   American war tax resisters today can use the War Tax Resisters Penalty Fund to defray penalties and interest seized by the IRS. The fund is raised as-needed by asking subscribers to contribute an equal amount.

   The oath of the Regulator tax resistance movement in the North Carolina colony bound its signers to “bear an equal share in paying and making up [the] loss” if “any of our company be put to expense or under any confinement.”

2. Communes, collectives, and co-housing projects.

   Some tax resisters have formed mutual support communities. Whiteway Colony was founded to try to live up to Tolstoyan ideals. The members of the Bijou and Agape communities live below a taxable income so as to avoid paying taxes.

3. Supporting resisters as an employer

   Some members of the Restored Israel of Yahweh ran a construction business and agreed not to withhold federal taxes from the wages of those employees who were fellow-members and who were resisting taxes.

   Vivien Kellems refused to withhold taxes from her employees’ wages, saying: “They are all free American citizens, thoroughly capable of performing all of the duties and responsibilities of citizenship for themselves. And so, from this day, I am not collecting nor paying their income taxes for them.”

   Charles Kanjama recently urged Kenyans to begin a tax resistance campaign, and said that to foil pay-as-you-earn withholding, “participating employers and employees can enter into a voluntary contract to convert monthly employment into quarterly or half-yearly employment, thus effectively delaying tax liability for several months.”

4. Disrupting auctions of seized property

   Earlier this year I recounted a dramatic and successful example of the American group “Peacemakers” blocking the sale of Ernest & Marion Bromley’s seized home.

   British nonconformists and women’s suffrage activists a century ago also used this tactic. Auctions became rallies, with speeches and banners and crowds that could number in the thousands. Supporters would pack the auction house and refuse to leave their seats. On some occasions, violence broke out. In some cases, auctioneers refused to handle goods that had been seized for tax refusal.

   Simply boycotting the auctions and refusing to buy seized goods is one way communities offer support. It was part of the Quaker “Discipline” to refuse to buy seized goods. When Valentine Byler’s horse was seized for non-payment of the social security tax, “no Amish came to bid on the horses and, due to a lack of bidders, they went for a good price, with the harnesses ‘thrown in’ by the auctioneer.”

5. Pay cash so as not to leave a paper trail

   Jessica Ramer and a Claire Files contributor brought this idea up. If you pay in cash whenever you can, you give the recipient the opportunity to decide whether or not to declare the income.

   Cash tips are easy to under-report. I asked about that recently and was told that most people pay with credit card/debit card and that the government now uses a percentage method for tips. They look at the charged meals, look at the number of total meals served, and then look at the charged tips to figure out how much cash tips you received.

   (100 meals served. 50 paid with card, tipping 15%. the government calculates 15% from 100 meals even if cash tips are only 10%)

   You can help out by tipping more when paying with cash or better yet, when you pay with card, put 1% tip on it and put the rest out as cash. I even leave a note for the server saying “this is your money, don’t tell your boss, or the government. share it with the buss boy if that is the policy.” This will help lower the average tip figures, but still give the nice server what they have earned.

6. Use barter to avoid taxable/seizable transactions

   Karl Hess found people willing to barter with him as he was dodging IRS seizures:

   The other day I welded up a fish-smoking rack for a family in Washington, D.C. It will earn me a year’s supply of smoked fish. At about the same time, I helped a friend dig a foundation. He’ll help me lay the concrete blocks for a workshop. Part of my pay for a lecture at a New England college was the use of the school’s welding shop, to make some metal sculptures. Three such sculptures have paid my attorney’s fees in maintaining the tax resistance which is the reason barter has become such an integral part of my life.

7. Manufacture and sell goods as alternatives to taxed products

   Before the American Revolution, colonists who opposed Britain’s economic control boycotted British products and began to produce homespun cloth, alternatives to tea, and so forth. Gandhi’s independence campaign in India made the wearing and production of homespun cloth central to the opposition, and the Salt March was focused on the illegal production of untaxed, non-foreign-monopoly salt.

   An example today is home-brewed beer (which beats the excise tax on alcoholic beverages).

8. Buycotts and boycotts that favor resisting businesses

   One report from World War Ⅰ-era America noted that this was a technique used by those who opposed the “Liberty Bonds”:

   Efforts to prevent banks from handling the bonds have centered chiefly in Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, Missouri and Oklahoma. The President of a Wisconsin bank has advised the Treasury that his depositors, mostly Germans, or of German parentage, have withdrawn many thousands of dollars from his bank because he aided the First Liberty Loan.

   These depositors, he added, had taken their accounts to two rival banks on the understanding that those banks would not aid the second Liberty Loan. The two banks, he reported, were not aiding the loan in any way.

   Many banks have felt the pressure of German influence in this propaganda, reports indicate. So pronounced was the movement that the States of Minnesota, North and South Dakota, and Montana recently decided that they would withdraw State funds from any bank which did not support the loan.

9. Social boycotts / shunning / noncooperation with tax collectors
   • Adolf Hausrath writes of Roman-occupied Judaea,

     The people knew how to torment these officials of the Roman customs with the petty cruelty which ordinary people develop with irreconcilable persistency, whenever they believe this persistency to be due to their moral indignation. In consequence of the theocratic scruples about the duty of paying taxes, the tax-gatherers were declared to be unclean and half Gentile.… among the Jews the words “tax-gatherers and sinners,” “tax-gatherers and Gentiles,” “tax-gatherers and harlots,” “tax-gatherers, murderers and robbers,” and similar insulting combinations, were not only ready on the tongue and familiar, but were accepted as theocratically identical in meaning. Thrust out from all social intercourse, the tax-gatherers became more and more the pariahs of the Jewish world. With holy horror did the Pharisee sweep past the lost son of Israel who had sold himself to the Gentile for the vilest purpose, and avoid the places which his sinful breath contaminated. Their testimony was not accepted by Jewish tribunals. It was forbidden to sit at table with them or eat of their bread. But their money-chests especially were the summary of all uncleanness and the chief object of pious horror, since their contents consisted of none but unlawful receipts, and every single coin betokened a breach of some theocratic regulation. To exchange their money or receive alms from them might easily put a whole house in the condition of being unclean, and necessitate many purifications. From these relations of the tax-officials to the rest of the population, it can be readily understood that only the refuse of Judaism undertook the office.

   • A social boycott of tax collectors was practiced in the years before the American revolution. John Adams wrote:

     At Philadelphia, the Heart-and-Hand Fire Company has expelled Mr. Hughes, the stamp man for that colony. The freemen of Talbot county, in Maryland, have erected a gibbet before the door of the court-house, twenty feet high, and have hanged on it the effigies of a stamp informer in chains, in terrorem till the Stamp Act shall be repealed; and have resolved, unanimously, to hold in utter contempt and abhorrence every stamp officer, and every favorer of the Stamp Act, and to “have no communication with any such person, not even to speak to him, unless to upbraid him with his baseness.” So triumphant is the spirit of liberty everywhere.

   • Harassment of tax collectors was a signature action of the Whiskey Rebellion. An early published resolution of the rebels read in part:

     [W]hereas some men may be found amongst us, so far lost to every sense of virtue and feeling for the distresses of this country, as to accept offices for the collection of the duty:

     Resolved, therefore, That in future we will consider such persons as unworthy of our friendship; have no intercourse or dealings with them; withdraw from them every assistance, and withhold all the comforts of life which depend upon those duties that as men and fellow citizens we owe to each other; and upon all occasions treat them with that contempt they deserve; and that it be, and it is hereby most earnestly recommended to the people at large to follow the same line of conduct towards them.

10. Violently resist tax collectors, disrupt trials/auctions, intimidate collaborators

    Tax collectors were tarred-and-feathered in America, both before and after the revolution — the violent expulsion of tax collectors was a frequent technique of the Whiskey rebels. Tax collectors have been the targets of violent reprisal at many times and in many places. Because of this, governments have often had to pay high salaries — or, frequently, percentages of the take — to convince collectors to take on the job, which only increases the resentment of those being collected from.

    During the French Revolution and its aftermath, customs houses were burned by mobs, tax rolls were destroyed, excise collectors were made to renounce their jobs and then were run out of town — or in some cases killed.

    The first Boer War was triggered when an armed group of Boers seized a wagon that was being auctioned after it was distrained for resisted taxes.

    The Whiskey rebels threatened to destroy the stills of those distillers who complied in paying the excise tax.

11. Boycotts / social boycotts of non-resisters

    If a tax resisting movement is large enough, it may be able to dissuade people from paying taxes through boycotts or social boycotts of people who are tax compliant. In Massachusetts, a group enforced a boycott of taxed British imports by declaring that

    …we further promise and engage, that we will not purchase any goods of any persons who, preferring their own interest to that of the public, shall import merchandise from Great Britain, until a general importation takes place; or of any trader who purchases his goods of such importer: and that we will hold no intercourse, or connection, or correspondence, with any person who shall purchase goods of such importer, or retailer; and we will hold him dishonored, an enemy to the liberties of his country, and infamous, who shall break this agreement.

12. Maintain solidarity in the face of divide-and-conquer tactics

    In mid-19^th century Germany, the government attempted to break a tax resistance movement by offering to moderate its enforcement efforts against people who could show that they had limited means. Karl Marx, who was promoting the resistance at the time, saw this as a divide-and-conquer tactic:

    The intention of the Ministry is only too clear. It wants to divide the democrats; it wants to make the peasants and workers count themselves as non-payers owing to lack of means to pay, in order to split them from those not paying out of regard for legality, and thereby deprive the latter of the support of the former. But this plan will fail; the people realizes that it is responsible for solidarity in the refusal to pay taxes, just as previously it was responsible for solidarity in payment of them.

13. Keep a record of the “sufferings” of resisters

    The Quakers responded to persecution by keeping careful records of individuals who had suffered thereby. In the archives of Quaker meetings, you can find lists of people who had resisted militia taxes or tithes for establishment church ministers, and what property was distrained by which tax collector.

14. Sign petitions and public advertisements, engage in public protests

    When the American Amish were trying to resist compulsory enrollment in the social security system, 14,000 of them signed a petition to Congress.

    During the Vietnam War, public advertisements were taken out by tax resisters. In early 1968, for instance, 448 writers and editors put a full-page ad in the New York Post declaring their intention to refuse to pay taxes for the Vietnam War. The signatories included James Baldwin, Noam Chomsky, Philip K. Dick, Betty Friedan, Allen Ginsberg, Paul Goodman, Paul Krassner, Norman Mailer, Henry Miller, Tillie Olsen, Grace Paley, Thomas Pynchon, Susan Sontag, Benjamin Spock, Gloria Steinem, Norman Thomas, Hunter S. Thompson, Kurt Vonnegut, and Howard Zinn.

    This year’s 2008 War Tax Boycott, Don’t Buy Bush’s War, and Pledge for Peace campaigns also have a public-signing component.

    Protests, rallies, pickets, and the like have been a part of many large-scale tax resistance campaigns.

15. Hold resisters’ property as an informal trustee

    Some resisters who are vulnerable to property seizure find sympathetic friends who are willing to hold the resisters’ property in their names as a way of foiling seizure. Some war tax resister alternative funds function partially as “warehouse banks” that hold deposits of war tax resisters.

    When a frustrated tax collector seized Ammon Hennacy’s protest signs as he was picketing the IRS office — claiming that he planned to auction them off to pay Hennacy’s tax debt — a friend of Hennacy helped him make new signs, each one marked “this sign is the personal property of Joseph Craigmyle.”

16. Keep in contact with resisters and express support

    After the press reported that Valentine Byler’s horse had been seized by the IRS as he was plowing his field, he got letters of support from all across the country.

17. Form groups for mutual support & coordinated decision-making

    Here there are too many examples to list.

18. Give financial aid to evicted rent strikers

    When the Irish Land League launched its rent strike, it claimed that “The funds will be poured out unstintedly to all who may endure eviction in the course of the struggle. Our exiled brothers in America may be relied on to contribute, if necessary, as many millions in money as they have thousands, to starve out the landlords and bring the English tenantry to its knees.”

19. Comfort and aid imprisoned resisters

    The trick to supporting imprisoned tax resisters is to respect their real needs and desires. When “someone interfered,” as Thoreau put it, and paid his taxes in order to spring him from his night in jail, they thought wrongly that they were doing Thoreau a favor, “for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall.”

    Juanita Nelson tells of the support she received in jail, where she had been taken in her bathrobe from her home. Her supporters took the time to learn how to support her in a way that was appropriate to her resistance:

    Two fellow pacifists, one of them also a tax refuser, had been permitted to come to me, since I would not go to them. I asked them what was uppermost in my mind, what they’d do about getting properly dressed? They said that this was something I would have to settle for myself. I sensed that they thought it the better part of wisdom and modesty for me to be dressed for my appearance in court. They were more concerned about the public relations aspect of getting across the witness than I was. They were also genuinely concerned, I knew, about making their actions truly nonviolent, cognizant of the other person’s feelings, attitudes and readiness. I was shaken enough to concede that I would like to have my clothes at hand, in case I decided I would feel more at ease in them. The older visitor, a dignified man with white hair, agreed to go for the clothes in a taxicab.

    They left, and on their heels came another visitor. She had been told that in permitting her to come up, the officials were treating me with more courtesy than I was according them. It was her assessment that the chief deputy was hopeful that someone would be able to hammer some sense into me and was willing to make concessions in that hope. But he had misjudged the reliance he might place in her — she was not as critical as the men. She did not know what she would do, but she thought she might wish to have the strength and the audacity to carry through in the vein in which I had started.

    And she said. “You know, you look like a female Gandhi in that robe. You look, well, dignified.”

    That was my first encouragement. Everyone else had tended to make me feel like a fool of the first water, had confirmed fears I already had on that score. My respect and admiration for Gandhi, though not uncritical, was deep. And if I in any way resembled him in appearance I was prepared to try to emulate a more becoming state of mind. I reminded myself, too, that I had on considerably more than the loincloth in which Gandhi was able to greet kings and statesmen with ease. I need not be unduly perturbed about wearing a robe into the presence of his honor.

20. Support the families of imprisoned resisters

    When Gandhi was preparing the groundwork for a tax refusal campaign in India, he noted that the Indian National Congress “should undertake to feed the wives and families of those who may be imprisoned.”

21. Study the law, give legal support

    When Elizabeth Cady Stanton was contemplating a tax resistance campaign for women’s suffrage in the United States, she noted, “One thing is certain, this course will necessarily involve a good deal of litigation, and we shall need lawyers of our own sex whose intellects, sharpened by their interests, shall be quick to discover the loopholes of retreat.”

22. Combine redirected taxes for dramatic charity giveaways

    Larry Rosenwald wrote, of this technique, “To sit on the Grants and Loans Committee of New England War Tax Resistance, and to dispense the interest on refused taxes to a youth group in Chelsea, a video for cable television on United States involvement in Central America, and a people’s garden in Roxbury is to be reminded of the ideal community, however blurred and fragmented, that war tax resistance is done on behalf of, in the hope of helping to make it clear and whole.”

Can you think of any I’ve missed?

From the 14 March 1951 Schenectady Gazette:

59 Refuse to Pay Taxes for War Support

New York — Saying that they find it “impossible to support the war in Korea, or any other war,” 29 men and 30 women announced their refusal to pay income taxes, and called upon all who share their feelings to join them. They released the following statement through the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist movement with headquarters in New York city.

“Feeling that war must inevitably come unless something drastic is done by individuals to show their unwillingness to go along with war-making policies of their governments, we the undersigned state hereby that we are not going to pay our federal taxes due March 15. For some of us this means that we will not pay that percentage which corresponds to the nation’s outlay for militarism; for others of us it means we will not pay even the first cent for the maintenance of a government whose main business is preparation for annihilation.

“We are particularly concerned at this time about the situation in Korea, where a civil struggle has been provoked and aggravated by two power-states to the point where it is already a major war — one which may be the spark that will set the world afire. We find it impossible to support policies and activities of this kind with our allegiance or with our money. We must, therefore, refuse to give money for such purposes of conquest and massacre, and must give it instead to causes which build understanding and world community.

“To our fellow citizens who may feel that this action singles out our nation for opposition we say we are unalterably opposed to militarism in all nations. It is always the first duty for citizens to attempt to reform their own governments: thus we begin with the United States. We hope that our country will change its policy and take the lead in establishing peace in the earth; we believe she should do right regardless of what others do. And we believe that her doing right will encourage other nations to do the same.

“We are certain that the only real hope lies in the abandonment of violence and in the practice of brotherhood among all peoples of the world. We invite all who share our feelings to join us now in refusing to pay taxes for war as one clear-cut and unmistakable expression of our desire for peace and brotherhood.”

The Tax Refusal Committee, whose chairman is the Rev. Ernest R. Bromley, Sharonville, Ohio, stated that refusal to pay taxes to governments, or to certain functions of governments, is an “honored action in the history of several countries, including India and the United States.”

A 1957 news report on the same group said that Bromley and “about 50 others” planned to resist their taxes that year, though Bromley himself said that his tax resistance group had “several hundred” members. “It is patterned,” he said, “after the Gandhi movement, with the emphasis on the individual changing rather than getting other people to do something.”

In a spirited, harmonious opening session of the joint National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee Fall gathering / 25^th annual New England Gathering of War Tax Resisters and Supporters, more than fifty war tax resisters from across the country (and a few WTR-curious from the Boston area and elsewhere) gathered at the Cambridge Friends Meeting house last night.

The rare joint gathering started with a panel session. I took some notes along the way, but got carried away by the back-and-forth and the ideas and sometimes forgot to jot things down.

Local resister Mike Prokosch started things off by emphasizing what military spending costs us in terms of opportunity costs — that is, what things of common benefit we could be funding but are neglecting because of our pathologically bloated military spending. He suggests that the future of an organized war tax resistance movement means “organizing on the basis of interest, not ideology.” We need to find out whose ox is being gored when money is siphoned out of communities and into the Pentagon and appeal to them to join us based on, if not common objectives exactly, at least a common enemy.

Mike Prokosch addresses the gathering

Long-time war tax resisters Juanita Nelson and Bob Bady spoke next, giving an overview of the birth and growth of the modern American war tax resistance movement, from Ernest Bromley’s refusal to buy a tax stamp for his car during World War Ⅱ, to the founding of the Peacemakers in 1948, through such highlights as the IRS siege of the Kehler/Corner house, to the present day. Nelson told the story of being hauled off to jail in her bathrobe back in the day. She says that in all of the decades she’s been resisting, the IRS has only gotten $4 out of her, when part of her pay as a model was withheld. She also expressed that the war tax resistance community in her neck of the woods “has dwindled… now we’re half a dozen people meeting every other month.”

Bady suggested that a key to becoming a more effective and powerful movement is to speak up more. Too many war tax resisters, he says, are satisfied with feeling that they have a clean conscience and are content to stay safely quiet, under the radar. We need to make more noise and be more of a friction to wear down the mechanism of the war machine, which will also help us to get the attention and support of other activists.

Ruth Benn explained what the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee is, how it operates, and the range of philosophies and methods used by its members. This was old hat to me, so I didn’t take many notes, but it was an eye-opener I’m sure to some of the newbies or to those who are locally- or regionally-focused and don’t give much thought to the national organization.

Erica Weiland spoke of how she came into war tax resistance after a frustrating time trying to work within a peace movement that seemed to be counterproductive when it was productive of anything at all. Hers is one of my favorite “salvation narratives” because she always mentions The Picket Line as one of the things that helped her take the plunge into being a war tax resister.

Katherine Fisher spoke next of how her decision to become a war tax resister grew out of her joining and working within the Society of Friends. She says that when she was still in school, she heard some people from the New York Yearly Meeting (I think it was) talk about war tax resistance and she filed it away as something she’d need to consider. Since she was still a dependent on her parents’ tax returns, the concern wasn’t urgent for her, but when she got out of school and got a full-time job she had to confront her choice. She decided that she would refuse to pay her taxes to the government but would instead put the money in a war tax resisters’ escrow account and would write to the IRS to explain her position. First, though, she took this tentative decision with her to a “clearness committee” in her Quaker meeting that she had asked to help challenge and clarify her decision. She spoke of this process, and of the support she got (and continues to get) from her meeting throughout. It was an inspiring, interesting, and well-told story, and a helpful contrast to the many go-it-alone stories of tax resistance that one commonly hears.

Earlier in the day, a handful of us who are on the administrative committee of NWTRCC got together to do business. I’d love to share with you some insider tidbits of what goes on in our chamber of sedition, but… you’d be bored to tears. One of these days we’ll have to put some sinister plot on the agenda, but as it is we mostly were talking budget, fundraising, schedules, objectives, who is going to be moderating what part of what discussion, and so forth — like just about any other small organization. Useful stuff, certainly, for making the more interesting parts of the larger meeting flow smoothly, but not in itself the sort of stuff to get your blood racing.

Yesterday was the first full day of the joint National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee Fall gathering / 25th annual New England Gathering of War Tax Resisters and Supporters in Boston.

The gathering began, as many such meetings do, with introductions. To mix things up, we first spent some time getting acquainted with our neighbors and then went around the circle introducing each other and briefly summarizing some of their recent war tax resistance-related work. This gave us a great overview of the variety of such activism.

For example, I introduced Andrea, who has spent the last several years concentrating in her work on the plight of political prisoners and on prison reform. She is now starting a worker-owned cooperative and is intentionally designing its operating charter so that it will function to help facilitate the war tax resistance of those of its worker/owners who are resisters.

After introductions, people shared some of the challenges and boosts they had encountered in their recent war tax resistance practice. Some examples I remember:

• Several people remarked on how doing war tax resistance as part of a community of resisters — or even with just a single buddy — can help everyone involved, not only in their own practice but in some way making the whole greater than the sum of its parts.
• Larry Rosenwald talked about how he refuses to pay his taxes, but doesn’t take steps to resist the inevitable IRS levy that follows. Instead he uses the occasion to publicize the fact that he’s been levied and to explain why he resists (often in the form of an op-ed essay).
• One person suggested that a winning message for reaching out to young people is “you’ve already been drafted,” meaning, of course, that though there’s no military conscription, the tax system forces us all to be galley slaves rowing the ship of state.
• Bob Bady recalled that back when the IRS was trying to seize his house, he asked Ernest Bromley how he’d dealt with the stress when the IRS tried [unsuccessfully, see The Picket Line, 31 January 2008] to seize his house. Bromley answered: “I just assumed it was God doing it and accepted it; that freed me up to do what I had to do.” That threw Bady for a loop, but he says with some more perspective he gets it: “The things I spent years worrying about losing turned out to be no big deal.”
• Clark Hanjian said that in his experience, we have a lot more allies than we might think. When he, sometimes with trepidation, has to explain his resistance to someone like a potential employer, he finds that surprisingly often they respond not with bewilderment or hostility but with a sympathetic nod and a “that’s a good idea.” [Clark asked me to correct the record: “It made me chuckle when I read the phrase ‘sometimes with trepidation,’ since I don’t think I’ve ever used the word ‘trepidation’ in reference to myself, and especially not in reference to my WTR. On the contrary, I usually try to take a fearless (some might call it careless) approach to my WTR. I recall my comment was in response to a woman who spoke about her fear of WTR, so perhaps some notes got interchanged? Anyway, the only reason I mention this is because I think that part of the benefit of sharing our stories with others is to reduce fear. I thought maybe you might want to revise this account so we don’t introduce fear into a story where none exists.”] (Case in point: on Saturday night we went out for beers after the meeting and got into conversation with the shift manager at the pizza pub, who then spent the next fifteen minutes at our table talking about a documentary on Afghanistan he’d recently seen and ended by telling us how important he thought our work was.)
• One resister mentioned that when he went to court to be sentenced for civil disobedience (I forget whether it was tax resistance related or not; I think not), the court was packed with supporters who quietly stood up when he was being sentenced, and how important this support had been to him.
• One resister read about how a local school was suffering from funding cuts, and so sent her tax payment directly to the school that year instead of to the IRS, and wrote them a letter explaining what she was doing and why.
• Another talked about her struggle to withdraw from California’s CalPERS state employee pension system, out of disagreement with the military industry investing of that system.
• A low-income / simple-living resister talked about how after an expensive emergency medical treatment, she wrote polite letters to the various medical staff who had treated her expressing her gratitude and explaining that she would be unable to immediately pay their bills (and why) and asking to work with them to come to an agreeable and possible payment plan. Most either forgave the bill entirely or reduced it to an immediately-payable amount. One even said that her letter had been appreciatevely passed around and posted in the office for others to read.
• Another remarked that as a child of Holocaust survivors who owes his existence to noncooperators who took risks to shelter his parents, he comes to war tax resistance through asking “how can I thank those people in some small way?”

From here, we broke up into two groups to discuss more specific tactical challenges, opportunities, and inspirations. The larger group was for people who earn a taxable income and use a variety of strategies to resist some or all of the taxes due. The smaller group, that I joined, was for those of us who earn an income below the federal income-tax threshold as a method of war tax resistance.

Many of those in our group expressed that they were partially motivated to choose this tactic because it challenged not only taxes but our larger complicity with the warfare state by means of our participation in the consumerist/capitalist economy. “I’m a war tax resister not just because of war,” Juanita Nelson said, “but what leads to war.”

Many also felt that this was a particularly easy form of tax resistance, and one with many fringe benefits. Some expressed what I certainly found to be true: that while we may have less income than we could, we feel more wealthy in terms of non-material goods, and we appreciate being able to put more of our time and energy into non-money-earning activities.

This ease, and the fact that this form of tax resistance is relatively non-confrontational, was also seen by some as a drawback. Some felt guilty when comparing their resistance to those resisters who risk fines and property seizures and prison. Others missed having a dramatic opportunity to say “No!” on April 15^th.

On the other hand, some liked the fact that this form of resistance was an ongoing, every-day, lifestyle change. One said that the sort of constant attention it requires was a way of praying for and receiving the “daily bread of insight” that nourishes her practice.

One conferee worried that this form of resistance tended to be too solitary, and that it didn’t lend itself immediately to the sort of collective action necessary to push for change. She recommended that we integrate consciousness-raising sessions about community and about attitudes toward money into our practice.

We also discussed a lot of practical challenges: what sorts of tax credits and deductions are available and how to apply for them; how to reduce big-ticket expenses like rent and transportation; how to afford health insurance, or how to best live without it; how to live on a low income while at the same time paying down student loan (or other) debt; whether it makes sense to resist the income tax with this method and the payroll tax by refusing to pay; whether it is hypocritical to accept government services or assistance while trying to avoid supporting the government, or whether it would be a “foolish consistency” to try to completely turn your back on government benefits; what to do when the law starts to require you to take minimum pension distributions.

Looking over the day’s schedule

After this session, the meeting split again, into smaller groups, deliberately divided up so that people from any particular region were scattered among the various groups. Then each group brainstormed on the topic of how to strengthen the war tax resistance movement, and how to do better outreach particularly among specific groups like “youth, people of color, anarchists & political radicals, women, environmentalists, libertarians, faith communities, LGBTQ, working class / underpaid, and folks with disabilities” — many of which have been underserved by our outreach thus far. Following this brainstorming, we met again, this time grouped by region, to share some of the results of the brainstorming.

Some of what stood out to me from this discussion:

• We might all benefit from some skills training in basic icebreaking and pressing the flesh. The normal bell-curve of how comfortable people are reaching out to strangers is not ideally-tuned for outreach, and it is adjustable by some training.
• One person made a big push for community television as a possible outlet for getting the word out. I was skeptical (who watches community television?) but by producing such shows you can also become better acquainted with video production in general, which can have benefits beyond community television. We might get more out of our actions if we also capture them on video.
• Our movement has an image problem. We’re typecast as “aging hippies” and this interferes with our ability to bring in people from different demographics. Some of the things we do to create a comfortable space for ourselves at meetings like this (the way we run meetings, the songs we sing, the food and drink we prepare, the extracurricular activities we offer) do not necessarily feel welcoming to people who don’t already fit the stereotype or who don’t want to be identified with it.
• One way of making our meetings more inviting to people outside of the usual suspects is to spend some time at meetings of activist groups of a different flavor. One Boston-area group, recognizing that it had gotten into a pale-granola rut, sent emissaries to more diverse activist groups in the area and reformulated their meetings and other activities to better fit with the scheduling, amenities, location, and other expectations of a larger variety of people.
• One person mentioned the challenge presented by the fact that April 15^th is no longer such a climactic public event. With more people filing electronically rather than taking that last-minute trip to the post office, Tax Day rallies are less effective. Maybe we should try to compose some sort of viral email to circulate in early April to take the place of our post office banner waving?
• Another attendee expressed that she felt that poor people were more and more connecting the lack of opportunities in their communities with the enormous military budget and imperial priorities, and thought that we could do fruitful outreach that way. Other groups that people thought might be ripe for our message were Palestinian rights activists (who are already very conscious of the connection between U.S. tax dollars and the repression of Palestinians), and people in the “Time Bank” and other alternative currency movements.

After this we again split up into sessions, one with a South-East regional focus, another to plan next year’s New England gathering, and one (that I joined) to do Q&A for new resisters. It was a short Q&A session — not our usual workshop — but we had an experienced resister there representing each of the three major divisions of resistance: below-the-tax-line resistance, filing but not paying, and not filing. Questions were asked and answered, concerns addressed, scenarios teased out.

All in all a very well-run and well-hosted meeting, with most of the credit going to the New England gathering.

Today is our NWTRCC business meeting at which we will consider proposals, adopt a budget and objectives for the coming year, pick a spot for the next gathering, and take care of other such business. Then we’ll have a counselor’s training session with some help from our legal advisor. But more on that tomorrow…

From the 10 December 1958 Ocala Star-Banner:

Income Tax Troubles

Preacher Drops Fast, Decides To Eat Again

Cincinnati (AP) — A pacifist minister, thinner, pale and hollow-cheeked after a 15-day fast in jail, has started to eat again.

He’s the Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin, slated for trial next Friday on a charge he didn’t turn up for a conference on his income taxes.

He decided to end his religious fast at advice of the county jail doctor, who has examined him daily.

Dr. George Musekamp and another physician, Dr. W.D. Lotspeich, University of Cincinnati Medical professor, had advised the minister last Friday to break his fast.

Think It Over

The minister had said he would think it over.

The Rev. McCracken has refused to pay part or all of his taxes for 10 years because he says the money helps pay for arms and he believes war is evil.

A friend, Ernest Bromley, who visited the pastor yesterday, said he was in good spirits, and seemed in good health.

But Bromley brought bad news to the Presbyterian-Episcopal minister — Episcopal officials want some changes in the church-linked neighborhood house which the Rev. Mr. McCracken directs.

The suggested changes mainly center on the minister resigning his post as director, but not his pastorate.

Episcopal Bishop Henry Wise Hobson conferred with the neighborhood house board Monday night and a board spokesman said he gave them an ultimatum:

Work Out Something

“Get something worked out by the end of the month.”

The spokesman said that if no change comes by the deadline, the Bishop hopes to continue some program at the house, but without the minister or the governing board.

Bromley said, “He (McCracken) knew it (Hobson’s action) was coming, but it didn’t alter his mind at all in doing what he is doing now.

“But he was unhappy about the action because the neighborhood house program is something he’s put a great deal into and wants to see continued.”

Bromley is a former methodist minister at Bath, N.C., who got into somewhat similar trouble during World War Ⅱ when he said he refused to pay a federal auto stamp tax. He said he spent 60 days in Raleigh, N.C., county jail on that in 1942.

Richard Fichter, a Springville, Pa., farmer and friend of both the minister and Bromley, turned up here last Saturday to lend moral support.

Pickets County Courthouse

He’s been picketing the county courthouse daily since then in the current cold wave, with a sign saying, “I don’t support war taxes either” and “I support McCrackin’s 15-day fast in jail for peace.”

All three are members of a pacifist group here called the Peacemakers, who say they won’t pay part of all their income tax because some is used for war purposes.

Fichter said he’ll continue his picketing until someone else takes over. None has yet appeared.

Fichter said he was also a former methodist minister at Springville but was stripped of his church for his non-taxpaying views.

From the 27 December 1958 Reading Eagle:

Pacifist Pastor To Spurn Appeal

Preacher En Route To Federal Prison

Cincinnati, Ohio, Dec. 27 (UPI) — The Rev. Maurice McCrackin, pacifist pastor sentenced to six months in federal prison at Allenwood, Pa., says he does not want his sentence appealed.

The Rev. McCrackin was sentenced to the Allenwood prison camp after he failed to answer an Internal Revenue Service summons. The pastor has refused for years to pay his income taxes because part of the money would be used for war armaments.

McCrackin made known his views on appeal through a letter sent to the Rev. Ernest Bromley, who supported McCrackin in his struggle with the government.

McCrackin, head of the west Cincinnati-St. Barnabas Church, wrote the letter while en route to Allenwood. It was posted at Zanesville, Ohio, and received by Bromley yesterday.

He wrote: “I said I wanted to file no appeal, nor did I want steps taken to keep the door open, so an appeal could be perfected later

“I do not recognize any appeal on my behalf… My position is not changed. This is a moral, not a legal, struggle.”

As you may remember from an article I posted several days back, one of McCrackin’s lawyers had told the press that he planned to appeal McCrackin’s conviction.

From the 30 December 1949 Kentucky New Era:

Police Scatter “Peace” Group

Non-Taxpayer Ready To Leave Prison Cell

Ashland, Ky., Dec. 29. — (AP) — Members of a peace group of six charged today they were ordered off a highway by state police while demonstrating to welcome Katsuki James Otsuka from prison.

Otsuka, a 28-year-old American-born Japanese [sic], completed 120 days in the Ashland Federal Correctional Institution, near here, for non-payment of war taxes.

Warden R.O. Culver indicated, however, that any release was out of his hands. He said Otsuka first must appear before United States Commissioner J.C. Yeager here for non-payment of a $100 fine in connection with his sentence.

The peace group, led by the Rev. Ralph Templin of the Wilberforce, O., University faculty, appeared on the state highway near the prison at 6 a.m..

At Frankfort, Police Commissioner Guthrie F. Crowe said three troopers have been assigned to maintain order outside the institution. The troopers were sent there at the request of Warden Culver, Crowe said.

The state policemen have been instructed to keep the highway clear and to see that no one is injured, Crowe said. “The police will not interfere with placards, banners or speeches,” he added.

Crowe said the group interfered with the free movement of guards and other institutional employes as they went to work this morning.

Templin and the Rev. Ernest Bromley of Wilmington, O., later attempted to interview prison officials about Otsuka’s release, but were told by a tower guard that none was available at that hour.

Templin said that “four carloads of state police” drove up shortly after 8 a.m. and ordered him and the others, all carrying peace placards, off the road and that they broke one of the placards.

The sign read:

“You did right in refusing to pay taxes for A-bombs.”

Templin said he asked what law was being violated by the picketing, but that he got no answer.

No one was available at the Ashland state police detachment for comment.

Other demonstrators included Henry Dyer of Yellow Springs, O., employe of a printing establishment; Lloyd Danzeisen, a railroad postal clerk of Brookville, O., near Dayton, and Mr. and Mrs. Wallace Nelson of Covington, Ky.

Nelson is a construction worker.

Otsuka, native of San Diego, Calif., was sentenced to 90 days and fined $100 on Sept. 1 in Indianapolis, Ind., by Federal Judge Robert C. Baltzell for refusing to pay 29 per cent of his income taxes, amounting to $4.50, which he considered to be for war purposes.

He has served an additional 30 days in lieu of the fine, but Culver said he must still appear before the commissioner.

Ralph Templin was a former missionary stationed in India, and an admirer of Gandhi’s techniques. The British government expelled him because of his support for Gandhi’s movement.

Back in the U.S., Templin noted that Gandhi had eagerly learned from American predecessors like William Lloyd Garrison and Henry David Thoreau, and proposed that Americans should return the favor by learning a thing or two from Gandhi. To this end, he helped to form the “Harlem Ashram” and its Non-violence Direct Action Committee, which concentrated on non-violent actions to fight racial discrimination.

Dyer was one of the World War Ⅱ conscientious objectors who was further radicalized by / helped radicalize the civilian work camps to which drafted conscientious objectors in the United States were assigned (he was later one of thousands of conscientious objectors the U.S. imprisoned).

Lloyd Danzeisen was one of the “Peacemakers” group. Wally & Juanita Nelson and Ernest Bromley I’ve covered here before in more or less detail.

From the 21 January 1950 Toledo Blade:

Fight On War Tax to Go On, Nisei Pledges

5 Months in Jail for Levy of $4.50 Fail to Daunt Him

Yellow Springs, O., Jan. 21 (AP) — Five months in prison have failed to daunt Katsuki James Otsuka in his determination to continue to refuse payment of taxes he believes will be used for war purposes.

A party of some 20 persons calling themselves “The Peacemakers” heard the American-born Japanese pledge himself last night to retain the stand which landed him in a federal correctional institution at Ashland, Ky.

Mr. Otsuka was sentenced to the institution and fined $100 by a Federal Court in Indianapolis. He had refused to pay 29 per cent of his income tax — amounting to $4.50.

The party was held at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Alfred Anderson.

The Rev. Ernesr Bromley, Wilmington, leader of “The Peacemakers,” told the group:

“Do not consider this a victory celebration, for Otsuka’s release was not our goal. We must remember our principal attack is against war as a means of settling disputes.”

What happened between the time when Peacemakers was leading the war tax resistance charge and 1982, when the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee was founded? There was another group, simply called “National War Tax Resistance,” that took the reins during the Vietnam War.

Here are some more excerpts from Robert Cooney’s and Helen Michalowski’s The Power of the People: Active Nonviolence in the United States about this transition period:

1965 was, as the CNVA Bulletin declared, “The Year of Vietnam.” Picketing and sit-downs across the country marked the announcement of the first US bombing of North Vietnam on February 7. These continued throughout the month and much effort was expended gathering signatures for a new appeal, the Declaration of Conscience, circulated by radical pacifist groups, urging civil disobedience. The Peacemakers group in Cincinnati organized a “No Tax for War in Vietnam Committee” calling for tax resistance. In December 1969 a separate group — War Tax Resistance, coordinated by Bob Calvert — was established and at the time included some 200 local tax resistance centers across the country.

From the 4 March 1965 newsletter of the Syracuse Peace Council

Nonpayment of war taxes, practiced by Quakers and others, disappeared as a pacifist testimony soon after the Civil War and Thoreau’s famous stand against the U.S. foray in Mexico. It first reappeared in World War Ⅱ when a few widely scattered individuals refused to pay federal taxes on the grounds that there was no way to prevent a significant part of their money from being used for military purposes. One resister, Ernest Bromley, was prosecuted and imprisoned for his refusal. Many others began to inform the Internal Revenue Service that payment violated their principles.

The enactment during World War Ⅱ of a measure which required employers to withhold taxes from their employees caused particular difficulties for pacifists and led to the formation of Peacemakers in 1948. A Peacemaker committee promoted tax refusal and provided research, literature, action suggestions, and publicity for those in the tax resistance movement. Although many hundreds of people were refusing to pay income taxes during the 15 years following 1948, the government prosecuted and imprisoned only six: James Otsuka of Indiana, Maurice McCrackin of Ohio, Eroseanna Robinson of Illinois, Walter Gormly of Iowa, Arthur Evans of Colorado, and Neil Haworth of Connecticut. These imprisonments and the seizure of a few cars and houses by the IRS, served to highlight the tax refusal testimony and establish it as a major nonviolent principle and tactic.

Tax resistance, like other forms of opposition to the military, increased dramatically during the Vietnam War. In 1966 the federal government levied an additional tax on every private telephone, and in a rare moment of candor, admitted that the money would help subsidize the war in Indochina. Peacemakers, the War Resisters League, and other nonviolent groups urged refusal of this tax and in the following years countless thousands heeded their call. Under the leadership of Bob and Angie Calvert, War Tax Resistance was formed in 1969 as a separate organization to investigate all aspects and ramifications of conscientious tax refusal. During the war there were over 200 local war tax resistance centers, as well as a number of “alternative life funds” which rechanneled refused tax money back into the local community for constructive purposes. Many of these continued after the end of the war.

The tactic of claiming enough dependents so that no income tax would be withheld became more widespread as the Vietnam war continued. Often the tax refuser would make clear the moral grounds for the protest by listing, for example, “all the Vietnamese” as dependents. Refusing to pay for war by claiming excessive exemptions brought particularly strong response from the government. A number of people were prosecuted and imprisoned: Jim Shea, Karl Meyer, William Himmelbauer, Mark Riley, Ellis Rece, Carole Nelson, John Leininger, and Martha Tranquilli (a 64-year-old grandmother and nurse). The tax resistance movement continued after the war and grew to include both pacifists and non-pacifists who could no longer in conscience support the military priorities of the government.

From the 4 March 1965 newsletter of the Syracuse Peace Council

As more and more tax money was directed toward the [Reagan era] military buildup, many activists revived interest in war tax resistance. Protests were organized each year, and individual resisters tried a variety of means to deny the government money for war. In April 1981, demonstrations were held in Dallas, Atlanta, San Francisco, Los Angeles and other cities and 24 people were arrested at IRS offices in New York City. The following year, the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee was formed by the Center on Law and Pacifism, Conscience and Military Tax Campaign, WRL, Peacemakers and eighty local groups. Nineteen eighty-three featured the largest show of war tax resistance actions in ten years, including Ralph Dull, an Ohio farmer and tax resister since 1951, who drove a truckload of grain to the IRS office as payment for his taxes. The IRS instituted a “frivolous returns” penalty to discourage the filing of returns with any but the requested information, and some resisters began an insurance fund, pooling their resources to pay fines and interest charges levied against fellow tax resisters.

From the 2 April 1949 New York Times:

“Peacemakers” Convene

Group Organized to Fight Draft With “Gandhian Methods”

Chicago, April 1 — The Peacemakers, organized a year ago in Chicago to apply “Gandhian methods” to resist militarism and conscription, opened its first annual conference here today.

Attended by 200 delegates from about fifteen states, the first sessions of the three-day meeting were devoted to reports from committees and speeches by four young men who explained their reasons for refusing to register for the draft. A.J. Muste of New York, secretary of the group’s national committee, presided.

In a press conference, the Rev. Ernest Bromley of Wilmington, Ohio, chairman of the organization’s tax refusal committee, said that on March 15 forty-three persons from various parts of the country “concertedly refused to pay all or part of their income taxes on the ground that such funds were being devoted to preparation for atomic and biological warfare.”

On this date in 1975, The Milwaukee Journal printed an expanded version of an Associated Press article I drew attention to last year mashed up with the one I reprinted a few days back:

War Tax Protesters Face Loss of Property, Freedom

By the Associated Press

Paul Snyder and his wife, Addie, of Fremont, Mich., saw their home sold last week for the taxes they refused to pay to support the wars they opposed.

But the property — sold at an Internal Revenue Service bid opening at the Fremont Post Office — went to a friend, and the Snyders said they would buy it back.

There are others like the Snyders — who have lost their property or even gone to prison for refusing to pay taxes to support wars. And, like the Snyders, they say they believe their protests were worthwhile and that they’ll continue them.

The Snyders withheld the portion they believed went to the Defense Department based on that agency’s share of the national budget. Snyder, 42, a veterinarian, said the total amounted to about 45% of their taxes.

Mrs. Snyder said the 1970 Cambodian invasion was responsible for turning a “pair of hard working Republicans” into war protesters and tax evaders.

They said they used the money for alternative purposes — mostly in Newaygo County on rural poverty projects — because “we believe in paying taxes.”

The Snyders’ $80,000 home was put up for sale by the IRS for the $3,023 in taxes owed for 1971–’73. The purchaser, with a high bid of $8,460, was Carol Blizzard of Holton, who represented a group of Snyder friends who will sell the home back to the Snyders.

In New York City, another taxpayer, Frank J. Costello, 33, a high school teacher, husband, and expectant father, faces the loss of part of his salary and the eventual possibility of imprisonment for his war tax protest.

On March 12, a federal judge handed down a decision against Costello in a civil action brought by the IRS for nonpayment of $659 in taxes for 1971. The IRS will have the right to confiscate his wages to get the money, the court held. Costello says he will appeal.

Now the government is considering whether to file criminal charges against him for his tax returns of 1972–’74. Costello claimed as many as 10 exemptions so that less money would be withheld from his paycheck for taxes in proportion to the share of the Defense Department in the federal budget.

Costello says he took the extra money and put it into community projects of his own choosing. But the law says falsely inflating exemptions is fraud, and he could wind up in prison.

There are others like Costello and the Snyders.

Martha Tranquilli, 64, was released from a federal prison in California March 3 after serving 7½ months for tax fraud for claiming antiwar organizations as dependents.

Ernest Bromley, 63, has been withholding taxes since the 1940s because of his pacifist views. His two acre farm in Butler County, Ohio, was confiscated last month.

An IRS spokesman said that in 1971, at the height of US involvement in the Vietnam War, 1,740 tax returns were readily identifiable as protest returns for war resistance or other reasons. For fiscal 1974, the number dropped to 667, although the spokesman said many such returns could go undetected.

The full scope of the protest might be more accurately reflected in the number of persons withholding payment of the federal excise tax on their telephone bills, a tax imposed specifically to pay for war costs. There were 56,445 instances in 1971 compared with 50,371 in fiscal 1974, the IRS spokesman said.

Here is an excerpt from Scott H. Bennett’s Radical Pacifism: The War Resisters League and Gandhian Nonviolence in America concerning the origins of the modern American war tax resistance movement:

In 1948 a small tax resistance movement emerged when several tax refusers learned about one another and began to correspond. Many of these early tax resisters were WRL members. Abraham Kaufman, the League’s executive secretary, facilitated many of these contacts. At its founding conference in 1948, Peacemakers established a Tax Refusal Committee. League members formed a majority on this committee, which was chaired by Ernest Bromley, a Methodist minister and the nation’s leading proponent of tax resistance.

For the next two decades, Bromley championed tax resistance and publicized examples from three continents to demonstrate its power. American examples included Quaker tax resistance during both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, the popular tax protests by colonists during the American Revolution, and Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay the Massachusetts poll tax to protest the Mexican War. He also cited England’s Wat Tyler (fourteenth century) and John Hampden (seventeenth century). Finally, he invoked Gandhi and the Indian independence movement; both resorted to tax resistance in the struggle against British rule.

For both moral and pragmatic reasons, tax resistance appealed to Peacemakers and to radical pacifists. Most important, it enabled absolutists to express their total commitment against militarism and war. The Peacemakers’ literature underscored this uncompromising position. One publication explained that tax resistance “is not merely a protest. It is an act.” Aware that modern, technological warfare required huge expenditures, tax resisters were seeking to cripple war preparation — and war — through nonpayment of taxes. Other literature asserted that nearly 35 percent of the national budget was earmarked for the military and that 80 percent paid for past, present, and future wars. The “new push-button type warfare,” Bromley declared, would require “more drafted dollars than drafted men.” Tax resisters were hoping to influence American policy by publicly repudiating military preparedness and weapon stockpiling before conflict broke out again. Unlike COs and nonregistration, tax resistance was both age and gender neutral. By enabling men and women of all ages and occupations to participate, tax refusal expanded the sphere of war resistance and promoted solidarity with draft-eligible men.

Ernest and Marion Bromley, whose Wilmington, Ohio, home served as unofficial headquarters of the Tax Refusal Committee, embodied the spirit of tax resistance. “The time has now come,” Ernest exclaimed in his 1948 IRS tax statement, “when men ought no longer to depend solely upon their spoken witness against war or preparation for it. They ought to prepare themselves for an outright resistance by a thorough-going dissociation with the war-making system.” In her March 1948 letter to the tax collector, Marion charged that “this country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire,” declaring “I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies… and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence.” The Bromleys believed that radical pacifist individuals and organizations must assume risks for war resistance. Anticipating the New Left, Ernest asserted: “Pacifists believe… that there is a… time and place where they as individuals must simply come to a stop, and ‘clog [the system] with their whole weight.’ Perhaps that time and place have come.”

Four months after its formation, Peacemakers’ Tax Refusal Committee published the statements of active tax resisters. Many of these people were WRL members. These statements illustrate the total commitment and absolutist nature of Peacemakers and of a section of the League. Writing in a different venue, Caroline Urie similarly declared:

In a time of crisis like the present it is our duty as sovereign citizens to defend our country not only with protest but with our lives, if necessary, against military enslavement and the possible annihilation implicit in atomic and bacterial warfare. In the brief time at our disposal, protest is not enough; if we are to assume real responsibility, we must act in a manner simple enough and clear enough to be understood and to arouse public conscience.

As justification for tax resistance, several WRL members pointed to the Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal, which had established the principle of individual responsibility for wartime actions, even in the face of wartime orders. In his 1948 letter to the IRS, Walter Gormley declared that he was “refusing to make any federal income tax payment, because they money would be used mostly for ‘crimes against peace.’ ” “The U.S. is preparing for a shooting war of aggression by maintaining bases, subservient governments and military forces from Korea to Turkey, by intensive research on methods of mass slaughter and by maintaining a huge military organization,” he charged. “I must refrain from supporting such a government.” Likewise, Valerie Riggs explained that “if our government… at Nuremberg could hold individuals responsible to stand against crime… I feel thoroughly justified by my own government in not paying this part of my tax.”

Perhaps A.J. Muste best expressed the compelling logic of tax resistance. “World War Ⅲ has already started,” he exclaimed in May 1948:

I cannot support a government in these war-measures, which I deem insane, wicked and suicidal. I must withdraw support from such war-measures in every possible way. The two decisive powers of government… are the power to conscript and the power to tax. Pacifists recognize that to be consistent they must refuse to be conscripted for military service or training. I have come… to the conviction that I at least am in conscience bound… to challenge the right of the government to tax me for waging war, and in particular for the production of atomic and bacterial weapons… The need for getting our pacifist teaching off the level of talk and writing and onto the level of action is, I believe, imperative.

Peacemakers was highly critical of pacifist organizations — the WRL included — that collected withholding taxes from their employees. By withholding taxes these pacifist groups were effectively barring tax refusers from working for them, or forcing them to resign. Both the WRL and the FOR paid a lot of attention to this issue. A special committee of the FOR examined the problem for a year before recommending that the FOR withhold taxes, even though most FOR employees had indicated that they wanted to make individual decisions about tax refusal. Staff member Marion Coddington (Bromley) resigned over the policy. The WRL also decided to withhold taxes. In justifying this policy, a member of the League’s executive committee declared: “The life of the organization is at stake.” The Peacemakers’ Tax Refusal Committee, which characterized the WRL and other pacifist groups as “tax collectors for the government,” was scathing in its denunciation. “If pacifist organizations, whose business is to create a warless world, are not ready to risk something for war resistance now,” the committee asked, “when will they be ready?”

Tax resistance took various forms. Total refusers paid not tax. Since most workers could not avoid withholding tax, total refusers were often self-employed. Miriam Keeler and Marion Coddington Bromley resigned from the Labor Department and the FOR staff in order to avoid the withholding taxes. Percentage refusers withheld that portion of taxes corresponding to the percentage the federal government would spend on war preparation and the military (calculations ranged from 35 to 80 percent). Finally, some tax resisters chose to live on an income below the taxable level or to work at several part-time, low-income jobs to preclude employers from withholding taxes. Some tax resisters refused to submit tax returns; others explained their action in letters to local tax collectors and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Some tax resisters, instead of remitting taxes to the government, contributed the money to WRL and other peace and justice organizations.

As a result of Peacemakers’ activism, tax resistance became a major issue for the WRL. The League sold stickers that tax resisters could attach to their tax forms. “This tax goes chiefly for war purposes, as a pacifist I pay under protest.” In the spring of 1948 the League passed several resolutions commending those, members or not, who practiced tax resistance. Beginning in 1948, several tax resisters began donating a portion of their unpaid income tax to the League, an act consistent with their willingness to pay taxes for nonmilitary social programs. The League established a special literature fund for these donations to ensure that they did not go to pay staff salaries, which were subject to withholding taxes.

Ammon Hennacy, a WRL member most often associated with the Catholic Worker movement, was a pioneer tax refuser praised by the League. A “Christian anarchist,” he first practiced tax refusal in 1943, when the tax withholding system was implemented. Each year at tax time he prepared a statement and mailed it to the IRS. Hennacy’s 1945 tax statement reflected the direct action and civil disobedience impulse that would shake the League over the next half-decade. “We can refuse to put our trust in Princes and Presidents,” he declared. “With Thoreau and Gandhi we can start our own campaign of Civil Disobedience by refusal to buy war bonds… and… pay taxes for war or conscription.” In 1950, Hennacy began expanding his protest; each year, on 6 August, he fasted and picketed the local IRS office for as many days as years had passed since Hiroshima. While picketing, he distributed tax statements and leaflets that repudiated war, advocated anarchism, and declared his tax resistance. When threatened with arrest for disturbing the peace while picketing, he retorted: “I’m disturbing the war.”

In a letter to Hennacy, [Abraham] Kaufman expressed his disagreement with tax resistance. But then he added: “I admire your guts and want you to know that I am with you, for each of us must use the methods he feels to be effective in bringing the world out of its present insanity. Your method may prove most effective in the long run.” Although he did not delude himself that his “One Man Revolution” would change government policy or transform the world, Hennacy insisted on the moral imperative of individual resistance to the militaristic state.

By mid-1949, radicals had succeeded in raising the issue of the WRL’s payment of withholding taxes, especially for members like Roy Kepler who supported tax refusal. In October the WRL endorsed CCCO assistance for tax resisters and authorized a review of the issue. Although they extended moral support to tax refusers and publicized their actions, most League members did not support tax resistance, and the WRL did not officially endorse it. Kaufman, in particular, insisted that it would be “unethical” for a small minority to “coerce” the League into accepting such a policy. With minor revisions, the League accepted its subcommittee’s Withholding Tax Report. Concluding that its survival as an organization took priority over tax refusal, the League decided to continue to withhold income taxes from its employees.

The WRL eventually changed its policy on withholding, and stopped withholding income taxes from the wages of one of its tax-resisting employees, Ralph DiGia, in 1956.

In 1975, the U.S. Congress’s Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation issued a report called “Investigation of the Special Service Staff of the Internal Revenue Service.”

The focus of the report was on the Nixon administration’s use of the IRS to go after political opponents, though the “Special Service Staff” project itself dated to the Kennedy administration and was ostensibly designed to gather information on “extremist” groups and individuals and “Ideological Organizations.”

Because of this focus, in addition to going after people on Nixon’s “enemies list,” the Special Service Staff also targeted war tax resisters — under its mandate to “coordinate activities in all Compliance Divisions involving ideological, militant, subversive, radical, and similar type organizations.” The group would come to track 8,585 individuals and 2,873 organizations — and about 800 of these involved war tax resisters.

In 1973, as the Watergate and related scandals were kicking up dirt, the IRS commissioner said that the Special Service Staff would stop investigating subversives in general, and the IRS would stick to investigating only those groups and people that promoted or practiced tax resistance. According to the Joint Committee report, after this point:

…except for 230 cases relating primarily to war tax resisters, no field referrals were made from SSS files after August 9, 1973.

The IRS focus on war tax resisters as such did not begin until 1970, according to the Joint Committee report:

Field referrals on war tax resisters

In 1970 the SSS began to take account of what it called “war tax resisters.” A “war tax resister” generally was defined as an individual or organization that refused to pay Federal income or excise taxes as a protest against the United States’ participation in the Vietnam war or who encouraged others to refuse to pay taxes. (However, the staff reviewed several cases included by the SSS in the war tax resister group of cases where noncompliance occurred because of a tax protest that was not directed toward the Vietnam war.)

The SSS classified approximately 800 files as “war tax resisters,” and it referred to the field 550 of these cases. These referrals occurred in two groups, the first a group of 320 cases during March–April 1972, and the second a group of 230 cases during December 1973, after the SSS had been terminated. Unlike the other field referrals… where the SSS recommended that the field take specific action, the tax resister referrals were sent out for the information of the field offices and for whatever action they “deemed appropriate.”

The Joint Committee staff examined about 10% of the war tax resister case files in the course of its investigation. Here is what it found:

Origins of SSS Activity on War Tax Resisters

Information in the SSS files indicates that SSS employees first began to take account of the war tax resistance movement early in 1970,¹ when the SSS began receiving FBI reports on this activity. However, it appears that the SSS began to focus on war tax resisters around mid-1971. On April 28, 1971, members of a war tax resistance organization held a demonstration at the National Office of the IRS in Washington, D.C. According to an SSS report, the SSS acquired copies of a tax resistance publication shortly after this demonstration and by mid-July 1971, the SSS had used this publication to establish a list of 192 individuals and organizations active in the war tax resistance movement. An SSS report also states that during June 1971, the SSS received from the FBI a list of underground newspapers in the United States and a list of the editors of these papers.²

During 1971, the SSS received additional FBI reports on tax resistance organizations and individuals, and publications the SSS received had begun to carry more articles on this topic. The SSS files also contain information indicating that some IRS offices were having additional problems with tax resistance. (However, it is not clear whether the SSS became aware of these problems during 1971.)

At the end of November, 1971, the Washington Post carried an article on war tax resisters. memoranda in the SSS files indicate that this article came to the attention of Commissioner Johnnie M. Walters. These memoranda also indicate that Mr. Walters was concerned about tax resisters, and his concern was communicated to the IRS employees charged with tax compliance. Memoranda in the SSS files indicate that the SSS participated in drafting a report on tax resisters (dated December 30, 1971) to the Commissioner from the Acting Assistant Commissioner (Compliance) John F. Hanlon. Mr. Walters returned this report with comments directing increased IRS action in this area. Thereafter, the SSS apparently intensified its activity dealing with war tax resisters.

Sources of War Tax Resister Files

The names for the SSS tax resister files were derived from several sources. One major source was publications, such as tax resistance newspapers and underground newspapers received by the SSS. These publications contained lists of individuals or organizations active in tax resistance. They also contained signed letters to the editor and articles on tax resistance activities. (As noted above, the names of a number of newspapers were provided to the SSS by the FBI.)

The SSS also received names of tax resisters from other units in the IRS. IRS Service Centers sent the SSS the names of tax protesters who had come to their attention because of information on returns filed with the Service Centers or letters of tax protest received by the Service Centers. Additional names and information were referred to the SSS by other IRS offices (including letters from the public complaining about the attitudes and activities of the tax resisters).

A third major source was FBI reports. As noted above, the SSS received a number of FBI reports on tax resistance individuals and organizations, and also received a list of underground newspapers.

Field Referrals of War Tax Resister Cases

According to information supplied by the IRS, the SSS had compiled files on approximately 800 war tax resister individuals and organization. Of these 800 cases, 550 were were referred to the field. The referrals of war tax resister cases were transmitted to the field in two groups, the first, a group of 320 cases sent out during March and April of 1972, and the second, a group of 230 cases sent out on December 20, 1973 (after the SSS had been formally terminated)… The 550 total field referrals of “war tax resisters” included 397 individuals and 153 organizations.³

First group of field referrals. — The first group of field referrals was transmitted by the SSS under a memorandum from the Assistant Commissioner (ACTS) to the District Directors. The SSS transmittal memorandum, entitled “War Tax Resisters,” contained a discussion of the war tax resistance movement and a number of exhibits designed to acquaint the District Director with the scope and activities of this movement. A list of the individuals and organizations located in the particular IRS district to which the memorandum was sent was attached to the transmittal letter, along with tax filing history for these individuals and organizations, where this information was available. Unlike the other field referrals… these referrals did not recommend that specific action be undertaken by the field offices, but said that the district should take action as it “deemed appropriate.” The transmittal also asked that a memorandum of any actions taken and results obtained by sent to Paul Wright. (The transmittal memoranda did not mention that the referrals came from the SSS.)

The staff examined a 10-percent random sample of the SSS files on this first group of war tax resister field referrals. The sample included 27 individuals and 6 organizations. The reports from the field included in the SSS files examined by the staff indicate that the referral resulted in field activity in a minority of the cases and that the field activity was by the Audit or Collection Divisions, with no indication that any Intelligence Division action occurred.

The staff examination indicates that some of these field referrals were made without previous analysis to see if there was likelihood of a tax violation. The SSS files on one of the cases referred to the field contained no evidence that the SSS had obtained and reviewed tax information (such as an Individual Master File printout) to determine whether the taxpayer may have failed to comply with the tax laws. In another case the Individual Master File printout showed that tax returns had been filed for all prior years with no balances owed; on this printout an SSS employee had noted that there was no basis for audit action. However, approximately one month later this case was referred to the field.

Not all of the cases in the first group of referrals involved “war” tax resisters. One organization referred to the field was a tax protest group generally classified as an “extremist White racist” group; there was no indication that this group was anti-war. Similarly, another case involved an individual who opposed the progressive income tax rate structure, and there was no indication this individual was anti-war.

Second group of field referrals. — The second group of field referrals was sent out on December 20, 1973, using a different form of transmittal memorandum than was used with the first group. The transmittal memorandum for these referrals was entitled “Information Items” and the District Directors were advised that the attached materials were forwarded for their information and for whatever action they “deem appropriate.” The memorandum also advised that it was not necessary to report any action taken, as was required with the earlier group of referrals. (Apparently no reply was requested because the SSS had been terminated.) Finally, there was attached a list of the individuals and organizations with their tax filing history, if this information was available.

The staff also examined the SSS files of a 10-percent random sample of this group of field referrals. This sample included 22 individuals and one organization. Printouts from the Individual Master File were obtained by the SSS for all of the 22 individuals examined; a master file printout was requested by the SSS for the one organization (but none was found because the organization had never obtained an Employer Identification Number). In comparison with the first group of field referrals, the SSS files on these referrals contained considerably more information indicating possible noncompliance with the tax laws, to support the referral of these cases to the field. (According to the SSS files, two of the names in the staff sample did not involve tax resisters and two of the names were derived from the Justice Department’s “Inter-Divisional Information Unit” list…)

1. IRS concern generally with the failure to pay Federal taxes as a war protest had developed much earlier. For example, the Internal Revenue Manual contained guidelines for the handling of war tax resistance cases as early as 1968. The guidelines originally pertained to failures to pay Federal income taxes, but by 1970 they also included telephone and transportation excise taxes.
2. According to a January 1, 1972, memorandum from Paul Wright to the Director of the Collection Division, the SSS considered that underground newspapers were important to the examination of the war tax resister group because they acted as a “conduit for their movement,” and contained numerous articles on how to file false returns and otherwise confuse IRS operations. “Underground newspaper” was defined to include newspapers of anti-establishment orientation which advocated violent or subversive means to achieve their ends. According to the IRS, the SSS had files on 148 underground newspapers.
3. The staff examination of administrative files and the other field referrals indicates that prior to March of 1972, there were several referrals of cases which could be classified as war tax resisters. A number of underground newspapers were also referred to the field under regular field referral procedures. The SSS also several times sent information concerning war tax resisters to field offices on an informal basis.

The SSS was so tainted by Nixon’s use of it that the IRS Commissioner told Congress that after it completed its investigations, he would try to have its files destroyed. This also made it difficult for the IRS to use information gathered by the SSS in its ongoing actions against war tax resisters.

So some such actions were abandoned in mid-stream: Notably, the seizure and sale of Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home. In 1975, after the IRS had already seized and auctioned off the house, the agency (under sustained pressure from the Peacemakers and their supporters) backed off, canceled the sale, and dropped its enforcement actions against the Bromleys and the Peacemaker movement (see The Picket Line 31 January 2008).

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 willful 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.

In 1972 the Catholic Worker organization itself was targeted by the IRS for failure to pay income tax. Eventually the IRS backed down in the face of public ridicule and Catholic Worker resistance. Some of the Catholic Worker articles about this were written by Dorothy Day and I’ve already excerpted them in an earlier Picket Line post focusing on her writings.

The June 1972 issue published a couple of reader reactions to the kerfluffle:

Dear Dorothy,

Ho, you are on the right track. I just read your tax exemption article in the May issue. You are absolutely correct.

I don’t know how you will do it. But you owe to all those you help, not the money represented, but the faith and steadfast purpose for which you stand — the guiding light. I pray for you. I hope some way you can make it — somehow.

Love,
Dick Mayer
409 West 11th St.
Newton, Kansas 67114

Dear Friends at CW,

I just read the 39^th Anniversary issue and am tremendously excited by the article: “If the Present Is Different…”

We are in a bit of a “predicament,” between seizure of our car and auction by the IRS. The IRS has adjourned the open auction and declared an auction for sealed bids; peace people around here are ready to rise to that challenge also.

We are starting a peace action center in this area. We’d be interested in literature lists of books and pamphlets written by CW people.

We read that the CW has to appear in court to justify its tax refusal and its refusal to ask for exemption — as if mercy had to ask permission! We are in a three-family intentional communlty of Mennonite background. War tax resistance is one of our pillars and we’ve not yet found our way out of tbe maze of incorporation into some status that gives us the kind of freedom we seek. But our existence together, our resistance and service, are dally victories. So we keep on.

Peace and Joy be with you,
David Jansen of the Bridge

The time has come, and that time was 14 April 1966.

350 Balk at Taxes in a War Protest

Ad in Capital Paper Urges Others to Bar Payment

Washington, April 14 — Some 350 persons who disapprove of the war in Vietnam announced today that they would not voluntarily pay their Federal income taxes, due tomorrow. They urged others to join them in this protest.

The Internal Revenue Service immediately made clear that it would take whatever steps were necessary to collect the taxes.

The group announced its plans this morning in an advertisement in The Washington Post.

“We will refuse to pay our Federal income taxes voluntarily,” the advertisement said. “Some of us will leave the money we owe the Government in our bank accounts, where the Internal Revenue Service may seize it if they wish. Some will contribute the money to CARE, UNICEF or similar organizations. Some of us will continue to pay that percentage of our taxes which is not used for military purposes.”

Joan Baez, Lynd, Muste

The first signature on the advertisement was that of Joan Baez, the folk singer. Others who signed it were Staughton Lynd, the Yale professor who traveled to North Vietnam last year in violation of State Department regulations, and the Rev. A.J. Muste, the pacifist leader.

The advertisement contained a coupon soliciting contributions for the protest. The ad said that further information could be obtained from Mr. Muste at Room 1003, 5 Beekman Street, New York City.

Those who placed the advertisement — which bore the heading “The Time Has Come” — said that those who sponsored it “recognize the gravity of this step. However, we prefer to risk violating the Internal Revenue Code, rather than to participate, by voluntarily paying our taxes, in the serious crimes against humanity being committed by our Government.”

The advertisement mentioned not only the war in Vietnam “against hungry, scantily armed Vietnamese guerrillas and civilians” but also “the spectacle of the United States invasion of the Dominican Republic,” an event the sponsors said “will go down in history alongside Russia’s criminal intervention in Hungary.”

Cohen Is Determined

The determination of Internal Revenue to collect the taxes the Government is owed was expressed in a formal statement by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Sheldon S. Cohen.

He said Internal Revenue would take “appropriate action” to collect the taxes “in fairness to the many millions of taxpayers who do fulfill their obligations.”

The Government has been upheld in court on all occasions when individuals have refused to pay taxes because of disapproval with the uses to which their money was being put, revenue officials said.

Ad Prepared Here

The headquarters of the Committee for Nonviolent Action, 5 Beekman Street, said yesterday that it had prepared the advertisement carried in the Washington newspaper after receiving 350 responses to invitations it had sent out soliciting participation in “an act of civil disobedience.”

A spokesman for the committee said that Mr. Muste, the chairman, was out of town and would return in about a week. The spokesman said that although monetary contributions in response to the advertisement had not yet begun to come in, the committee was prepared to mail literature explaining its program to those who responded to the advertisement.

The spokesman said that the tax protest had been intended to represent “a more radical and meaningful protest against the Vietnam War.”

The committee announced that members would appear at 2:15 P.M. today in front of the Internal Revenue Service office, 120 Church Street, to distribute leaflets concerning the tax protest.

It also said that a rally and picketing would be staged from 11 A.M. to 3:30 P.M., in front of the Federal Building in San Francisco under the sponsorship of the War Resisters League. The league also has offices at 5 Beekman Street.

With press coverage like this, including even the address to write to for more information, Muste hardly needed to pay for ad space in the Times (assuming they would have printed the ad — many papers rejected ads like this).

Some other names I recognize from the ad are Noam Chomsky, Dorothy Day, Dave Dellinger, Barbara Deming, Diane di Prima, Lawrence Ferlinghetti, Milton Mayer, David McReynolds, Grace Paley, Eroseanna Robinson, Ira Sandperl, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, Ralph Templin, Marion Bromley, Horace Champney, Ralph Dull, Walter Gormly, Richard Groff, Irwin Hogenauer, Roy Kepler, Ken Knudson, Bradford Lyttle, Karl Meyer, Ed Rosenthal, Maris Cakars, Gordon Christiansen, William Davidon, Johan Eliot, Carroll Pratt, Helen Merrell Lynd, E. Russell Stabler, Lyle Stuart, John M. Vickers, and Eric Weinberger.

The text of the ad (without the signatures and “coupon”) is as follows:

The Time Has Come

The spectacle of the United States — with its jet bombers, helicopters, fragmentation and napalm bombs and disabling gas — carrying on an endless war against the hungry, scantily armed Vietnamese guerrillas and civilians… this spectacle will go down in history alongside the unforgivable atrocities of Italy in Ethiopia.

The spectacle of the United States invasion of the Dominican Republic — again pitting our terrifying weaponry mainly against civilians armed with rifles… this spectacle will go down in history alongside Russia’s criminal intervention in Hungary.

But the spectacle of the indifference of so many Americans to the crimes being committed in their names, by their brothers, and with their tax money… this spectacle reminds us more and more of the indifference of the majority of the German people to the killing of six million Jews.

The United States government has not reacted constructively to legitimate criticism, protests and appeals:

• by world leaders including the Pope, U Thant and President De Gaulle —
• by United States leaders including Senators Morse, Gruening, Church, Fulbright, Robert Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy and Stephen Young —
• by hundreds of thousands of citizens including 2,500 clergymen and countless professors who placed protest advertisements in leading newspapers —
• by innumerable students, many tens of thousands of whom have taken their protest to Washington on several occasions —
• by celebrated individuals such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Robert Lowell, Arthur Miller and Dr. Benjamin Spock —
• and by leading newspapers, including the New York Times.

We believe that the ordinary channels of protest have been exhausted and that the time has come for Americans of conscience to take more radical action in the hope of averting nuclear war.

Therefore, the undersigned hereby declare that at least as long as U.S. Forces are clearly being used in violation of the U.S. Constitution, International Law and the United Nations Charter…

We will refuse to pay our federal income taxes voluntarily

Some of us will leave the money we owe the government in our bank accounts, where the Internal Revenue Service may seize it if they wish. Others will contribute the money to CARE, UNICEF or similar organizations. Some of us will continue to pay that percentage of our taxes which is not used for military purposes.

We recognize the gravity of this step. However, we prefer to risk violating the Internal Revenue Code, rather than to participate, by voluntarily paying our taxes, in the serious crimes against humanity being committed by our Government.

Today, a couple of notes about Richard Fichter, who was one of those in the first generation of the modern American war tax resistance movement. First, from the 24 May 1952 Binghamton Press:

Methodists Dismiss Pastor Refusing to Pay Income Tax

Springville Minister Won’t Contribute To “Arms Race”

Scranton — (AP) — An executive session of the one hundred and second annual meeting of the Wyoming Conference of the Methodist Church has dismissed a 29-year-old minister because he refuses to pay income taxes.

The action was taken yesterday against the Rev. Richard M. Fichter of Springville, Pa., who was charged with six rural churches on a circuit in Susquehanna County of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

The dismissal was announced by the Rev. Dr. Roswell W. Lyon, super­intendent of Mr. Fichter’s district. He said Mr. Fichter was given a chance last year to pay the taxes after he had repeatedly refused to do so.

Mr. Fichter, a deacon in the church, says he refuses to pay taxes as a “matter of Christian conscience because of the suicidal armaments race” the money would support. The Internal Revenue Bureau has filed a lien against him for back taxes. The amount due was not disclosed.

His dismissal was voted by the executive session which overruled a decision of the nine-man Board of Ministerial Training and Qualifications. The board voted 5-4 to accept Mr. Fichter as an elder, the final recognition given by the church. The later vote against Mr. Fichter automatically dismisses him from his charges, Dr. Lyon explained.

The next article gives a little more information about an intriguing Fichter tidbit I dug up a while back. From the 10 December 1958 Binghamton Press:

On “Duty” at Ohio Courthouse

Pa. Farmer Picketing To Aid Jailed Minister

Cincinnati — (AP) — Richard Fichter, a Springville, Susquehanna County, Pa., dairy farmer has started a one-man picket duty at county courthouse here.

Mr. Fichter drove 650 miles here in a rickety old car, to support a pacifist jail inmate who won’t pay taxes.

His placard, on one side, says: “I don’t support war taxes either.”

The other side says: “I support McCrackin’s 13-day fast in Jail for peace.”

Mr. McCrackin is the Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin, controversial minister sent to jail indefinitely for contempt because he refused to take any part in his U.S. District Court arraignment Nov. 24. He was Indicted on a charge of failing to heed a summons to a conference on taxes.

Refused Food

The pastor has refused any food since entering his cell, except to drink some water. On a doctor’s advice, he ended his fast yesterday.

Mr. Fichter, a wiry man, started his picketing Saturday. The Pennsylvania farmer, like the minister, is connected with a group here called the Peacemakers, who refused to pay part, or all their Income tax because it goes for war purposes.

Mr. Fichter was once a minister, serving a Methodist Church in Springville, a small rural community. But he said he was stripped of his church.

He said: “Fellow clergymen wouldn’t let me in as a ministerial member of the Wyoming Conference because of my refusal to pay taxes.”

Prepared Appeal

An attempt by Mr. Fichter to crash “The $64,000 Question” television show, no longer on the air, on Nov. 17. 1957, in New York City was cut short by show officials. He had prepared an appeal against paying taxes to buy nuclear weapons.

Mr. Fichter said he hasn’t paid his taxes in nine years. “The first year, they (Revenue Service) took it out of my bank.

“After that I didn’t file a return. Lately they’ve been coming out to the farm trying to get me to file. And they sent me a notice recently saying they’d like to file it for me — going to the banks and feed mills and so on, to get the figures.”

New troubles loom for Mr. McCrackin, minister of a com-Church in the west end of Cincinnati.

He also directs church-connected Neighborhood House. Episcopal Bishop Henry Wise Hobson has taken steps that may force out the minister as director.

Not As Minister

A house board spokesman said last night the bishop’s suggestions for a change are still somewhat loose, but that one suggestion was to have the minister step out as director — but not as minister of the church.

Ernest Bromley of nearby Sharonville, one of the leaders of the non-taxpaying Peacemakers and also a onetime Methodist minister in Bath, N.C., said he visited the minister in jail yesterday and found him in good spirits, “but he looks a little thinner from that fast.”

Mr. McCrackin is slated for trial in U.S. District Court here Friday.

Judge John H. Durffel last week ordered a new group of prospective jurors drawn for the trial.

When Nixon got caught using the IRS to go after his political enemies, one of the consequences was that the agency — though on the cusp of victory in its battle to seize the home of war tax resister Ernest Bromley — surrendered and returned the home to its rightful owners.

IRS reverses seizure of home owned by pacifist group

Washington, D.C. (AP) — A pacifist group’s scheduled protest rally at Internal Revenue Service headquarters turned into a victory celebration Wednesday after the agency reversed its seizure of a home owned by members of the organization.

While about 40 members of the Peacemakers danced and sang outside, IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander received several of their leaders in his office to confirm the decision to drop all assessments against the 25-year-old group.

The action meant the return of the Cincinnati, Ohio, home of Peacemaker founder Ernest Bromley and several friends active in the organization. Earlier this year, the IRS technically seized the house against a claim of $33,000 the group allegedly owed in back taxes for the years 1966–71. None of the occupants was forced to move out.

Talked With Bromley

A spokesman for Alexander said the IRS district office in Cincinnati decided to reverse its lien upon the property following an Aug. 27 interview with Bromley. As to why Alexander personally met with Peacemaker leaders, the aide would say only “he talks with various groups from time to time.”

Bromley did not attend [the protest/celebration, presumably —♇] because of illness, friends said.

The tax assessment against the Peacemakers had followed a probe in 1969 of that group and other anti-war organizations by the now-defunct Special Service unit of the IRS. According to revelations which surfaced during the Watergate scandal, the unit developed an “enemies” list of about 11,000 individuals and groups with anti-war views.

Alexander has long acknowledged that activity as improper and has promised that the list would no longer be used in tax investigations.

Politically Tainted

In the meantime, the Peacemakers protested the levy on grounds that the case was politically tainted and, moreover, that ownership of the Cincinnati house was not tied directly to the organization and hence was not liable to seizure.

The case attracted considerable controversy in the Cincinnati area, including an 8-1 vote of the City Council to request a congressional investigation of the IRS action.

One Peacemakers spokesman, Chuck Matthei, said the group thanked Alexander for the reversal “despite the recalcitrance” but also told him of suspicions that Special Services files are still active in IRS regional offices.

Moreover, said Matthei, the group vowed to continue its advocacy of non-payment of federal taxes so long as any portion of them go to support the defense program. Matthei said he and most of the other pacifists still active in the group deliberately live below the taxable income level to avoid criminal liability.

It may sound like a long shot, but have you considered trying to make friends with the tax collector? It’s a strategy that’s so crazy it just might work!

Here are some examples of where tax resisters or their allies have tried it:

• The Peacemakers were eventually successful in winning back war tax resisters Ernest and Marion Bromley’s home, which had been seized for back taxes. In a retrospective, they claimed:

  The Peacemakers were resolute that their confrontation with the government would be on their terms. Believing that the legal system is an instrument of oppression and exists to protect the state and the property of the powerful, they refused to take their case into the courts. Instead they worked to make the truth known through personal meetings with IRS officials, through continuous leafletting, through appealing to their supporters country-wide to demand justice.… They put enormous energy into building relationships with IRS officials that would allow for honest dialogue. And always, they challenged and responded to the bureaucracy in a highly personal manner.

  Initially it appeared that IRS’ reversal had been an act of faith in the Peacemakers; that it had been touched by the group’s philosophy of truth and their consistent methods. It wasn’t that complete a victory. The Commissioner had been sufficiently impressed by these people to where he called for a special investigation — which verified the Peacemakers’ statement.

  Dorothy Day wrote of this:

  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.

• Quaker Thomas Watson was seized by the American army during the revolution, and condemned “to be stripped and ironed, and on the next afternoon to be publicly hanged” for refusing to take the continental currency that Congress was using to finance the war, his family was given little hope for him. “You may go home,” one petitioner was told, “and rest assured your uncle will be hanged.”

  But the wife of the prisoner had a warm friend in the landlady of the inn at Newtown; and when was woman’s kindness ever invoked for the relief of suffering, or woman’s tact required in vain? She was advised not to apply in person for the release of her husband. The landlady had learned Lord Sterling’s fondness for the creaturely comforts of life; and knew that wine had the effect to soften the severity of his temper. To take advantage of this disposition, she invited him to a sumptuous dinner. He did full justice to the delicacies of the table, and willingly partook of the generous old wine, which had been reserved for special occasions. As the wine warmed the General’s good-nature and disposed him to kindlier feelings, she cautiously introduced the case of the condemned; pitied his condition, cold, and in irons; regarded his treatment as needlessly severe; and at length requested that his fetters might be removed and his clothes restored to him. He could not resist this appeal of his hostess; and a note was sent to the guard in answer to her request.

  The good woman continued her entreaties, and still plied the wine; when, at the proper moment, the wife was introduced. She fell on her knees before him, burst into a flood of tears, and told him who she was, and, with all the earnestness, feeling, and eloquence of a loving wife pleading for the one she loved best on earth, begged him to spare her husband’s life. Her entreaties were of a nature hard to be withstood. He remained some time silent; then, raising her to her feet, he said, “Madam, you have conquered. I must relent at the tears and supplications of so noble and so good a woman as you. Your husband is saved.” He immediately wrote a pardon for the prisoner, and ordered his discharge. The happy pair now returned to their homes rejoicing.

• Such friendly meetings do not always end well. Quaker Henry Paxson found this out when he was visited by the tax collector some 300 years ago:

  Paxson kindly treats [the tax collector] with best he had, and when he had filled his wem, and drank plentifully of good cider, he distrains the plates he had eaten on, and the tankard he so freely toped out of, but the wife begged the tankard, and bid him take something in lieu of it.

• In 1779, a delegation of Quakers met with the sheriff, his sub-lieutenants, a judge, magistrates, and a tax collector in their area of Pennsylvania. They reported:

  [We] had opportunity of laying before them the reasons and grounds of our refusal to comply with several requisitions, made for the support of, or that have near connection with, war; and to open our principles, and the consistency thereof with the doctrines of the Gospel, as set forth in the New Testament and pointed out by the prophets, and the inconsistency of Christians oppressing one another for conscience sake.

  They generally appeared friendly, and to receive our visit kindly, some of them particularly so; and most of them acknowledged that the prophecies concerning the disuse of carnal weapons, pointed to the Gospel dispensation, and was much to be desired.

  We had good satisfaction in the performance of this service, believing truth owned it, and that there is encouragement for Friends to use further endeavors of this kind.

• The Rebecca Rioters could be cruel, or even deadly, to the keepers of the toll gates they were destroying. More frequently, they would allow the keepers a few moments to collect their personal belongings and remove them from the building before they demolished it. And on some occasions, the encounters were almost cordial:

  The gate-keeper begged of them not to destroy the furniture, as it was his own; and his wife and child were in bed, but they might do as they liked with the gate and toll-house. Rebecca went to the door, and ordered her [Rebecca’s] daughters not to touch anything but the gate and the roof of the toll-house, and not to break the ceiling for fear the rain would harm the woman and child in bed. In their hurry, however, to unroof the house, one of them slipped between the rafters, and his foot got through the ceiling. Rebecca expressed her sorrow at the accident, as it might cause inconvenience to the gate-keeper.

  They behaved remarkably well to the gate-keeper, and frequently desired him and his wife not to be alarmed, as they would not injure them in the least; but at parting Rebecca desired him not to exact tolls at that gate any more.

• There was no more persistent foe of the IRS than Vivien Kellems, but:

  Miss Kellems stresses that she holds no animosity toward the officials who enforce the tax laws. When IRS Commissioner Johnnie M. Walker took office earlier this year [1971] she sent him a note outlining their differences but congratulating him on his appointment. “He sent back a nice thank you note,” she said.

• During the tax resistance campaign for women’s suffrage in Britain, good relationships between the resisters and the auctioneers who were enlisted to sell off their goods for taxes allowed them to better use these auctions as rally and propaganda opportunities. On one occasion:

  …the auctioneer opened the proceedings by declaring himself a convinced Suffragist, which attitude of mind he attributed largely to a constant contact with women householders in his capacity as tax collector.

  When Kate Raleigh’s property was seized by the tax collector:

  Miss Raleigh naturally made use of the occasion for propaganda purposes, conversing with the tax collector for some time on the subject of Woman Suffrage, and presenting him with Suffrage literature, which he accepted. Before taking his leave he expressed himself as, on the whole, in favour of women’s claims to enfranchisement.

• The movement against Thatcher’s Poll Tax initially tried to reach out to the councils who were responsible for setting the budgets that implemented the tax, and to the labor union representing the tax collectors who would be enforcing it, to ask them not to cooperate. However, this met with very little success.
• War tax resister Robin Harper met with a tax auditor and a “frivolous tax coordinator” at an IRS office in 2000. He described how it went:

  I quickly assured them that an accurate accounting should of course be established, but that in no way could I alter my refusal to deliver my tax dollars into the U.S. military machine. Earlier I had described how my Conscientious Objection was rooted in our Quaker Peace Testimony and how I had performed two years of civilian alternative service with a self-help housing project during the Korean War.

  With his defensive posture evaporating, Mr. Means [the “frivolous tax coordinator”] told us that his father fought in the Korean War and came home tormented by post traumatic stress disorder. Thereafter he would have nothing more to do with guns, “because he had seen what guns can do.” That gave my supporter, who had lived through World War Two in Germany, an opening. Drawing a parallel with my war tax refusal, she pointed out how German income taxes funded the governmental atrocities of the Third Reich.

  …

  At one point, when I was describing how the International Center has been installing solar water purification units in Central American villages, Mr. Means broadened our discussion, noting that the scarcity of safe water is becoming a global problem. In my followup letter to our interview, I sent him a copy of an eye-opening article from the Resist newsletter discussing this issue in depth.

  Near the end I took the opportunity to unfurl the large chart which chronicles my war tax redirection these past forty-one years and to describe how I was first propelled into war tax protest by U.S. nuclear atmospheric bomb testing in Nevada and the Pacific.

  After more than three hours (and well past normal lunchtime), the two finally closed the interview with smiles and friendly handshakes. Mr. Means even admitted that his title of “Frivolous Tax Coordinator” was really a substitute for “Tax Protester Coordinator,” an internal administrative category which Congress had abolished in recent Taxpayer Bill of Rights legislation.

  Despite their training to be suspicious (all taxpayers are trying to get away with something), IRS folk, like all human beings, can be positively affected by openness, honesty and sincerity. Transparency can often trump suspicion.

  I have learned how we all hunger for caring, person-to-person exchanges. Look how a one hour audit stretched into more than three hours, much of which involved genuine sharing far beyond the scope of the audit!

  As our discussion rose above tax details, Mr. Means, the tax protester “sheriff,” was led to cast aside some of his official person and let his personal feelings and thoughts come through. He also became increasingly interested in discerning what makes war tax refusers tick. I am sure he came to understand that our witness is anything but “frivolous.”

Here are a handful of artifacts relating to the American war tax resistance movement circa 1967.

First, some relics that were filed alongside a letter from Herbert Sonthoff to W. Walter Boyd (though I think this filing may be arbitrary and that the letters are not related to each other):

An Open Letter ^*

At this late date it is pointless to muster the evidence which shows that the war we are waging in Vietnam is wrong. By now you have decided for yourself where you stand. In all probability, if you share our feelings about it, you have expressed your objections both privately and publicly. You have witnessed the small effect these protests have had on our government.

By April 15^th, every American citizen must decide whether he will make a voluntary contribution to the continuation of this war. After grave consideration, we have decided that we can no longer do so, and that we will therefore withhold all or part of the taxes due. The purpose of this letter is to call your attention to the fact that a nationwide tax refusal campaign is in progress, as stated in the accompanying announcement, and to urge you to consider refusing to contribute voluntarily to this barbaric war.

Signed:

Prof. Warren Ambrose	Mathematics, M.I.T.
Dr. Donnell Boardman	Physician, Acton, Mass.
Mrs. Elizabeth Boardman	Acton, Mass.
Prof. Noam Chomsky	Linguistics, M.I.T.
Miss Barbara Deming	Writer, Wellfleet, Mass.
Prof. John Dolan	Philosophy, Chicago University
Prof. John Ek	Anthropology, Long Island University
Martha Bentley Hall	Musician, Brookline, Mass.
Dr. Thomas C. Hall	Physician, Brookline, Mass.
Rev. Arthur B. Jellis	First Parish in Concord, Unitarian-Universalist, Concord, Mass.
Prof. Donald Kalish	Philosophy, U.C.L.A.
Prof. Louis Kampf	Humanities, M.I.T.
Prof. Staughton Lynd	History, Yale University
Milton Mayer	Writer, Mass.
Prof. Jonathan Mirsky	Chinese Language and Literature, Dartmouth College
Prof. Sidney Morgenbesser	Philosophy, Columbia University
Prof. Wayne A. O’Neill	Graduate School of Education, Harvard University
Prof. Anatol Rapoport	Mental Health Research Institute, University of Michigan
Prof. Franz Schurmann	Center for Chinese Studies, University of Calif., Berkeley
Dr. Albert Szent Gyorgy	Institute for Muscle Research, Woods Hole, Mass.
Harold Tovish	Sculptor, Brookline, Mass.
Prof. Howard Zinn	Government, Boston University

^* Institutions listed for informational purposes only

P.S. The No Tax for War Committee intends to make public the names of signers, hence if you wish to add your signature, early return is desirable. Contributions are needed, and checks should be made payable to the Committee.

The following page, dated 11 March 1967, shows a mock-up of the intended public advertisement showing the signers’ names:

The committee will publish the above statement with names of signers at tax deadline — April 15.

Send signed statements to: NO TAX FOR WAR COMMITTEE, c/o Rev. Maurice McCrackin, 932 Dayton St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45214.

For additional copies of this form, put number you will distribute and name and address on the following lines:
No. _____ Name ____________________
Address _________________________

Signers So Far

• Meldon and Amy Acheson
• Michael J. Ames
• Alfred F. Andersen
• Ross Anderson
• Beulah K. Arndt
• Joan Baez
• Richard Baker
• Bruce & Pam Beck
• Ruth T. Best
• Robert & Margaret Blood
• Karel F. Botermans
• Marion & Ernest Bromley
• Edwin Brooks
• A. Dale Brothington
• Mrs. Lydia Bruns
• Wendal Bull
• Mrs. Dorothy Bucknell
• John Burslem
• Lindley J. Burton
• Catharine J. Cadbury
• Maris Cakars
• Robert and Phyllis Calese
• William N. Calloway
• Betty Camp
• Daryle V. Carter
• Jared & Susan Carter
• Horace & Beulah Champney
• Ken & Peggy Champney
• Hank & Henry Chapin
• Holly Chenery
• Richard A. Chinn
• Naom [sic] Chomsky
• John & Judy Christian
• Gordon & Mary Christiansen
• Peter Christiansen
• Donald F. Cole
• John Augustine Cook
• Helen Marr Cook
• Jack Coolidge, Jr.
• Allen Cooper
• Martin J. Corbin
• Tom & Monica Cornell
• Dorothy J. Cunningham
• Jean DaCosta
• Ann & William Davidon
• Stanley F. Davis
• Dorothy Day
• Dave Dellinger
• Barbara Deming
• Robert Dewart
• Ruth Dodd
• John M. Dolan
• Orin Doty
• Allen Duberstein
• Ralph Dull
• Malcolm Dundas
• Margaret E. Dungan
• Henry Dyer
• Susan Eanet
• Bob Eaton
• Marc Paul Edelman
• Johan & Francis Eliot
• Jerry Engelbach
• George J. Etu, Jr.
• Mary C. Eubanks
• Arthur Evans
• Jonathan Evans
• William E. Evans
• Pearl Ewald
• Franklin Farmer
• Bertha Faust
• Dianne M. Feeley
• Rice A. Felder
• Henry A. Felisone
• Mildred Fellin
• Glenn Fisher
• John Forbes
• Don & Ann Fortenberry
• Marion C. Frenyear
• Ruth Gage-Colby
• Lawrence H. Geller
• Richard Ghelli
• Charles Gibadlo
• Bruce Glushakow
• Walter Gormly
• Arthur Goulston
• Thomas Grabell
• Steven Green
• Walter Grengg
• Joseph Gribbins
• Kenneth Gross
• John M. Grzywacz, Jr.
• Catherine Guertin
• David Hartsough
• David Hartsough
• Arthur Harvey
• Janet Hawksley
• James P. Hayes, Jr.
• R.F. Helstern
• Ammon Hennacy
• Norman Henry
• Robert Hickey
• Dick & Heide Hiler
• William Himelhoch
• C.J. Hinke
• Anthony Hinrichs
• William M. Hodsdon
• Irwin R. Hogenauer
• Florence Howe
• Donald & Mary Huck
• Philip Isely
• Michael Itkin
• Charles T. Jackson
• Paul Jacobs
• Martin & Nancy Jezer
• F. Robert Johnson
• Woodbridge O. Johnson
• Ashton & Marie Jones
• Paul Jordan
• Paul Keiser
• Joel C. Kent
• Roy C. Kepler
• Paul & Pauline Kermiet
• Peter Kiger
• Richard King
• H.A. Kreinkamp
• Arthur & Margaret Landes
• Paul Lauter
• Peter and Marolyn Leach
• Gertrud & George A. Lear, Jr.
• Alan and Elin Learnard
• Titus Lehman
• Richard A. Lema
• Florence Levinsohn
• Elliot Linzer
• David C. Lorenz
• Preston B. Luitweiler
• Bradford Lyttle
• Adriann van L. Maas
• Ben & Sue Mann
• Paul and Salome Mann
• Howard E. Marston, Sr.
• Milton and Jane Mayer
• Martin & Helen Mayfield
• Maurice McCrackin
• Lilian McFarland
• Maureen & Felix McGowan
• Maryann McNaughton
• Gelston McNeil
• Guy W. Meyer
• Karl Meyer
• David & Catherine Miller
• James Missey
• Mark Morris
• Janet Murphy
• Thomas P. Murray
• Rosemary Nagy
• Wally & Juanita Nelson
• Marilyn Neuhauser
• Neal D. Newby, Jr.
• Miriam Nicholas
• Robert B. Nichols
• David Nolan
• Raymond S. Olds
• Wayne A. O’Neil
• Michael O’Quin
• Ruth Orcutt
• Eleanor Ostroff
• Doug Palmer
• Malcolm & Margaret Parker
• Jim Peck
• Michael E. Pettie
• John Pettigrew
• Lydia H. Philips
• Dean W. Plagowski
• Jefferson Poland
• A.J. Porth
• Ralph Powell
• Charles F. Purvis
• Jean Putnam
• Harriet Putterman
• Robert Reitz
• Ben & Helen Reyes
• Elsa G. Richmond
• Eroseanna Robinson
• Pat Rusk
• Joe & Helen Ryan
• Paul Salstrom
• Ira J. Sandperl
• Jerry & Rae Schwartz
• Martin Shepard
• Richard T. Sherman
• Louis Silverstein
• T.W. Simer
• Ann B. Sims
• Jane Beverly Smith
• Linda Smith
• Thomas W. Smuda
• Bob Speck
• Elizabeth P. Steiner
• Lee D. Stern
• Beverly Sterner
• Michael Stocker
• Charles H. Straut, Jr.
• Stephen Suffet
• Albert & Joyce Sunderland, Jr.
• Mr. & Mrs. Michael R. Sutter
• Marjorie & Robert Swann
• Oliver & Katherine Tatum
• Gary G. Taylor
• Harold Tovish
• Joe & Cele Tuchinsky
• Lloyd & Phyllis Tyler
• Samuel R. Tyson
• Ingegerd Uppman
• Margaret von Selle
• Mrs. Evelyn Wallace
• Wilbur & Joan Ann Wallis
• William & Mary Webb
• Barbara Webster
• John K. White
• Willson Whitman
• Denny & Ida Wilcher
• Huw Williams
• George & Lillian Willoughby
• Bob Wilson
• Emily T. Wilson
• Jim & Raona Wilson
• W.W. Wittkamper
• Sylvia Woog
• Wilmer & Mildred Young
• Franklin Zahn
• Betty & Louis Zemel
• Vicki Jo Zilinkas

Following this was a page explaining how to go about resisting:

Some Methods of Nonpayment

1. For those owing nothing because of the Withholding Tax.
   
   Such persons write a letter to the Internal Revenue Service, to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer cannot in good conscience help support the war in Vietnam, voluntarily. The writer therefore requests a return of a percentage of the money collected from his salary.
   
   Note: Of course, the IRS will not return the money. However, the writer has refused to pay for the war voluntarily and has put it in writing. This symbolic action is not to be belittled since anybody who does this allies himself with those who will withhold money due the IRS.
2. For those self-employed or owing money beyond what has been withheld from salary.
   
   Such persons write a letter to be filed with the tax return, stating that the writer does not object to the income tax in principle, but will not, as a matter of conscience, help pay for the war in Vietnam. The writer is therefore withholding some or all of the tax due.

Note: In all cases, we recommend that copies of these letters be sent to the President and to your Senators.

Remarks:

The Internal Revenue Service has the legal power to confiscate money due it. They will get that money, one way or another. However, to obstruct the IRS from collecting money due (by not filing a return at all, for example) seems less important to us than the fact that each is refusing to pay his tax voluntarily. With this in mind, many of us are placing the taxes owed in special accounts and we will so inform the IRS in our letters.

Willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $10,000 and up to a year in jail, together with the costs of prosecution. So far, the IRS has prosecuted only those who have obstructed collection (by refusing to file a return, by refusing to answer a summons, etc.). Usually, the IRS has collected the tax due plus 6% interest and possibly an added fine of 5% for “negligence”. The fact that the IRS has rarely, if at all, prosecuted tax-refusers to the full extent of the law does not mean they will not do so in the future.

Finally, an article from the December 1967 edition of The Capitol East Gazette:

Tax Refusal Urged by Group

Two thousand anti-war leaflets on telephone tax refusal were distributed in Capitol East on Saturday, Nov. 18, by members of CHOICE, a group of local residents who are withdrawing their support for the Vietnam war.

The leaflet explains that the 10% phone tax was enacted in April 1966 specifically to raise money for the Vietnam war.

According to CHOICE, the phone company will not remove a person’s telephone if he refuses to pay the tax. The company asks refusers to state why they are withholding the tax and then turns the matter over to the Internal Revenue Service.

According to CHOICE, there are presently 25 known tax refusers in the Capitol Hill area.

Those desiring CHOICE’s leaflet are asked to call LI 6‒9836.

Mary Stone McDowell is a rare — perhaps unique — example of someone who took a war tax resistance stand during World War Ⅰ and was also part of the post World War Ⅱ revival of war tax resistance in America.

From the 14 March 1918 New York Herald (excerpt):

Woman Teacher Is Suspended on Pacifist Charge

Miss Mary S. McDowell, Member of Society of Friends, to Face Trial.

Miss Mary S. McDowell, a teacher of Latin in the Manual Training High School, was suspended from duty without pay yesterday as a result of charges of pacifism brought against her several weeks ago by the Board of Superindendents.

The order suspending Miss McDowell, issued by Dr. Gustave Straubenmuller, acting Superintendent of Schools, was approved formally by the Board of Education at its meeting. In the formal notice the cause for suspension is given as “conduct unbecoming a teacher.”

Miss McDowell will be called before a special committee of the School Board to show cause why she should not be dismissed from the service. No date has been set for the trial.

Miss McDowell, who lives with her mother at No. 20 Crooke avenue, Brooklyn, is a member of the Society of Friends and declares that by reason of her faith she conscientiously is opposed to war and all its activities. It is alleged she repeatedly refused to sign loyalty pledges circulated among the teachers and refused to take part in Red Cross work and Liberty Bond sales.

Miss McDowell has been a teacher in the public schools for thirteen years and, in the opinion of Dr. Straubenmuller, is “a very estimable woman and an excellent Latin teacher, with unfortunate views regarding the war.”

(The New York Times, always jealous in defending its own freedom of speech, though it so rarely has anything to say that the government would find any need to censor, editorialized that “it becomes the Friends to retire from and to keep out of positions which in their very nature involved the declaration and teaching of patriotism as it is understood by a majority of human beings so large that its members have a right to consider themselves normal and everybody else abnormal. For these reasons it seems to us that a Friend, at this time, is distinctly out of place as a teacher in a public school — that if well advised such a teacher will resign, and that if not docile to good counsel, he or she, as the case may be, should be dismissed.”)

From the 15 September 1949 Brooklyn Eagle:

Ex-Boro Teacher Joins 69 in Income Tax Defy

Today is Federal income tax payment day, but 70 pacifists throughout the country, including a former school teacher in Brooklyn, will refuse to pay Uncle Sam who, they say, is spending his money preparing for a war.

The group has grown since last March 15 when about 40 pacifists, objecting to the “war preparations,” refused to pay either all or a part of their taxes.

Mary McDowall of 555 Ocean Ave., a Quaker who taught Latin at Abraham Lincoln High School until her retirement five years ago, is a member of the group, known as the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers.

“I’m Not Stingy”

Miss McDowall has withheld one-third of her total tax, claiming “at least that proportion is used for war preparation.” The withheld amount, she points out is donated to the American Friends Service Committee (Quakers).

“I don’t want the money I withhold,” she says. “I’m not stingy. I merely won’t help in construction for war.

Miss McDowall’s Quaker principles caused her suspension from the faculty of Manual Training High School in 1918. She was suspended for “disloyalty and insubordination,” having refused to take part in the school’s patriotic aid program of World War Ⅰ.

She was cleared and reinstated in 1923 when it was officially admitted that her Board of Education trial had been held “at a time of great public excitement.”

Has Jaile[d] Confrere

The 70 “tax refusers,” in a statement issued at their headquarters, 2013 5^th Ave., Manhattan, announced they “hail the courage of Katsuki James Otsuka,” who drew a three-month Federal sentence and a $100 fine in Indianapolis earlier this month for refusing to pay $4.50 in income taxes.

Otsuka also refused to pay the fine, choosing instead an additional sentence.

Among the organization’s Manhattan members is Sander Katz, 25, who served 19 months in jail for refusing to report for induction in World War Ⅱ and who was sentenced to another year and a day last November for refusing to register under the 1948 Draft Act.

Another Brooklyn Eagle article, from, I think, around tax day of the following year:

Pacifist Balks at “War” Use of Income Tax

Mary S. McDowell, 74, retired public school teacher of 555 Ocean Ave., wants it known that again this year she is paying only two-thirds of her Federal income tax.

The reason, she advised during a call at the Brooklyn Eagle office, is that she is opposed to war and refuses to finance the manufacture of war materials.

“An estimated third of income tax collections goes for defense,” she said. “So one-third of my tax payment, or what would be a third of it, I am giving to a charity. I did it last year on my own initiative and this year I am withholding one-third as a member of the ‘Peacemakers’.”

From its Manhattan office at 2013 5^th Ave. the Peacemakers issued a press release in which it described itself as “a national pacifist movement” and listed “27 men and 19 women in scattered parts of the United States” who are not paying income taxes because they “refuse to finance war preparations.” Miss McDowell is among those listed.

“I am a Quaker,” said Miss McDowell, the only Brooklynite on the Peacemakers’ list. “I have always been opposed to war. Not paying income tax is a practical Way of expressing opposition to war.

“I was opposed to the first World War. I was teaching at Manual Training High School then. Because of my expressed opposition I was fired. It wasn’t until five years later that I was reinstated as a teacher.”

She was at Abraham Lincoln when she retired in 1945.

The Peacemakers’ list of tax rebels includes the names of the Rev. A.J. Muste of 21 Audubon Ave., Manhattan, described as secretary of the organization, and the Rev. Ernest R. Bromley of Wilmington, Ohio, named as chairman of the Tax Refusal Committee.

“One omission from the list,” the release explains, “is the name of Katsuki James Otsuka, an earlham college student of Richmond, Ind. He was released on Jan. 16 after serving nearly five months in the Federal Correctional Institution, Ashland, Ky., for his refusal to pay $4.50 income taxes. He was released even though he continued to refuse to pay. His name does not appear because his imprisonment prevented his earning a taxable income for 1949.”

The Eagle covered her protest again in 1952:

Ex-Teacher Here Joins “Tax-Refuser” Movement

A retired Brooklyn Latin teacher was one of 41 “Tax Refusers” across the nation who deducted from their Federal returns — due last midnight — percentages they said would be used for present and future wars.

Mary S. McDowell of 555 Ocean Ave., a Quaker who started teaching in borough schools in 1900 and was suspended from the school system from 1918 to 1923 for pacifist activities, in a letter to the local internal revenue office said she was sending $237 — 60 percent of her return — to the American Friends Service Committee, a charity, to keep herself from being “involved in war preparations.”

The 76-year-old woman wrote: “All war is contrary to the essential principle of Christianity and to the basic faith of democracy.” She inclosed a pamphlet entitled “A Democratic Program for a Durable Peace” which she recently had published.

Last year at this time, she said, she deducted only 45 percent from her tax return. The increase this year, she explained, was prompted not by inflation but by mounting Government spending for rearmament.

Government Takes Lien

The income tax office last July, in a move to collect the unpaid balance of her return, placed a lien on the elderly ex-teacher’s pension.

A native of New Jersey, Miss McDowell attended Swarthmore College and taught in Manual Training and Abraham Lincoln High Schools. She retired in 1945.

Her letter, in part, said: “I realize that I cannot entirely free myself from being involved in war preparations; but I believe it is important to bear my testimony in action as far as I can.

“Now that we are so largely devoting our men and our resources to war preparations and taking part in an armament race, it seems clearer than ever that our course may be leading toward world war and inconceivable slaughter and destruction to our own country as well as the world.

“Accordingly, it would seem that not only religious pacifists, but all intelligent true patriots should do everything in their power to halt rearmament and vastly increase constructive activities looking toward worldwide human welfare and durable peace.”

The Eagle covered her protest again in 1953:

Woman, 77, Clings to Tax-Strike Vow

A 77-year-old former Latin teacher has taken a stand in which many of her neighbors would like to join her today, although for more personal reasons. Mary McDowell of 555 Ocean Ave. has refused to pay her income tax.

Member of the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers — a group of individuals scattered over the nation who withhold that part of their tax which they believe will be used for armaments — Miss McDowell this year held back 70 percent.

Each year the tally grows. In 1952, the elderly teacher said, she deducted only 60 percent from her return. The year before it was 45 percent. It is her custom to contribute the deducted amounts to the American Friends Service Committee.

The Quaker lady has been fighting a war against war nearly all her life. She started teaching in Brooklyn in 1900 but was suspended from the school system from 1918 to 1923 because of her pacifist activities during World War Ⅰ.

Her defiance of the tax collector, Miss McDowell calls “the new patriotism.” The popular idea, she said, holds up the soldier as a model of patriotism but, against this, she matches her own method of “trying to prevent a disaster to one’s country.”

Each year the U.S. Government refuses to be persuaded and places a lien on her teacher’s pension. Each year Miss McDowell tries, in the same way, to express her belief that “war or threats of war cannot bring security.”

The Tax Refusers, she said, “strive not only to avoid assisting in preparations for war, but also to point out constructive courses of action, that will bring durable peace through human welfare, disarmament and solution of world problems.”

Miss McDowell believes the great day of permanent peace “will come like Spring,” suddenly but only as a result of slow preparation and a multitude of just such efforts as her own small token resistance to the tax collector.

A year later, McDowell was at it again, and the Eagle was there:

Anti-War Ex-Teacher Defies Uncle Sam Again on Taxes

Mary McDowell, 78, retired high school teacher of 555 Ocean Ave., last week figured out her 1953 Federal income tax.

It came to $300.

She promptly sent a check for $90 as her tax to the Internal Revenue Bureau.

“I’m paying only 30 percent of my tax,” she said yesterday.” I refuse to pay the 70 percent which goes for war purposes.”

She calls her tax defiance “the new patriotism.”

Miss McDowell is a member of the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers — a group of individuals scattered over the nation who each year withhold part of their tax which they believe will go for armaments. This is the fourth year she has withheld part of her tax.

Each year the Government refuses to go along with her and it places a lien on her teacher’s pension.

She is a Quaker and has been fighting against war all her life.

“War is contrary to Christian principles and is contrary to democratic ideals,” she contends.

In 1964, the Mary S. McDowell story became the second of the “Profiles in Courage” featured on the short-lived television series of that name. The Friends Journal published a profile of McDowell in 2004.

Here is some more war tax resistance news from the 1950s. First, from the Tonawanda Evening News of 15 March 1950 (excerpts):

Some Insist They Won’t

It’s T- (for Tax) Day and Rush To Pay Up Gets Terrific

Chicago (UP) — Americans rushed today to file their income taxes before the midnight deadline but a few individuals and groups risked imprisonment by defying the inevitable.

Pacifists Won’t Pay

At Washington, the Justice Department revealed it expected to have indictments by tonight’s deadline against 149 persons for trying to evade $10,000,000 in wartime taxes. There is a six-year statute of limitation in tax cases.

Nevertheless, some people announced today that they would refuse to pay taxes at the risk of going to prison.

At Des Moines, a Quaker couple and an engineer told the tax collector they wouldn’t pay because they were Pacifists. Both the Quaker husband and the engineer were sentenced as conscientious objectors during World War Ⅱ.

An organization calling itself “Peacemakers” planned a noontime picket of the Internal Revenue Bureau in New York City. The signs said “Your Taxes Pay for the H-Bomb” and “Refuse to pay Taxes for War Purposes.”

The Gandhi Manner

The group which says it is dedicated to non-violent resistance to militarism and war, announced that at least 27 men and 19 women members throughout the country would refuse to pay taxes.

At Cincinnati, three members of the group announced their refusal in order to demonstrate “non-violent resistance to evil, after the manner of Mohandas K. Ghandi [sic] of India.”

Arthur Sternberg of St. Paul figured out for himself that 32 percent of his tax goes for defense and he withheld that amount — $51 — from his payment.

From The Cedar Rapids Gazette on the same day:

Three Iowans Refuse To Pay Taxes for “War Spending”

Des Moines (UP) — The hydrogen bomb hasn’t been exploded, but it had income tax day reactions in Iowa.

Three lowans listed the bomb among reasons why they refused to pay their federal income tax for 1949.

One of them is a 35-year-old mechanical engineer, Walter Gormly of Mt. Vernon, who said he also refused to pay his tax for the years 1947 and 1948.

Gormly, who said he is a “pacifist” and “a philosophical objector to war,” said the hydrogen, bomb was only one of his reasons for refusing to pay the tax.

“In the side-stepping of all efforts to hold high level conferences with Russia, the United States seems to fear Russia might appease the U.S. in any such, conference and spoil the excuse for continued war spending,” he asserted.

Gormly said he was a conscientious objector during the recent war and served three years in prison as an objector.

“I object to authoritarianism,” he said, in explaining why he refused to sign his tax return. His tax was approximately $100.

Gormly said he was associated with the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers. That group issued a statement advocating peacemakers to refuse “to pay taxes which are for the purpose of carrying on war.”

Arthur Emery of Earlham sent a joint return for himself and wife, along with a statement of taxes withheld from his wife’s wages as an employe for a time last year at Perin college in Oskaloosa, and a receipt for a $105 donation to a peace organization.

“We do not object to paying 40 percent of our tax which we feel goes for constructive purposes,” Emery wrote the internal revenue collector, but, he added: “We cannot conscientiously finance the construction of atom and hydrogen bombs.”

From the Carroll Daily Times Herald, 17 March 1952:

Mt. Vernon Objector Again Refuses to Pay Income Tax

Mt. Vernon, IA. (AP) — Walter Gormly, 37, who says he is a “philosophical objector to war,” says he again has refused to pay his federal income taxes.

Gormly made public copies of his letter to the Internal Revenue office in Des Moines announcing his intentions of not paying the tax.

Last year the self-styled consulting engineer similarly refused to pay his federal income tax as “a protest gesture.” The government seized his station wagon to satisfy a $270 tax lien. It was sold at auction for $230.

Gormly served a three-year federal prison term for draft law violations during World war Ⅱ. In his letter of refusal to pay his 1951 income taxes, he asserts the Korean war “is illegal” and says he does not wish to provide the government with funds which may be used in carrying on the war.

A press release by a national pacifist group known as “Peacemakers” lists Gormly and two other Iowans among a group of 41 Americans who are refusing to pay income taxes as an expression of their opposition to war.

The other two Iowans are Mr. and Mrs. Arthur Emery, Earlham Quakers who also refused to pay taxes a year ago. As in Gormly’s case, the Emery car was put up for auction by the federal government to satisfy a tax lien.

From The Cedar Rapids Gazette on 15 March 1954:

Gormly Says He Will Not Pay U.S. Tax

Special to The Gazette.

Mt. Vernon — Walter Gormly, Mt. Vernon’s self-styled anti-war crusader, announced Monday that he was refusing for the eighth time to pay federal income taxes.

The announcement was made in a letter to Frank J. Halpin, Iowa collector of internal revenue. A copy of the letter was received Saturday by The Gazette, but Gormly set Monday — income tax deadline — as the release date.

Gormly said his reason for refusing to pay his income tax was that the federal government’s major function “is to prepare for and to wage war.”

“Something like 90 percent of the proposed Eisenhower budget is for past, present, and future wars,” he wrote. “However, some of the remaining 10 percent is used for thought control, persecution of political minorities, and for other nefarious purposes and ought not be paid any more than the money for war.”

Served Prison Term.

Gormly, 39, drew attention in March, 1951, when federal agents auctioned off his 1948 model car for $230 because he refused to pay income taxes for 1947 through 1949.

He is a mechanical engineer and does free-lance design work for small industry.

He also served three years of a five-year federal prison term for refusing to comply with selective service laws. He was sent to prison in October, 1943.

Gormly’s name is one of 43 on a list of persons who have refused to pay federal income tax. The list, which contains the names of no other Iowans, was sent out by the Rev. Ernest R. Bromley of Gano, Sharonsville, Ohio, chairman of the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers.

The group is described as a national pacifist organization “which advocates the practice of non-violence as demonstrated by the late Mohandas K. Gandhi.”

Text of Letter.

Gormly’s letter to Halpin also took issue with the federal government’s handling of Communist spies.

“It is constantly dinned into us that all Communists are spies,” the letter said. “J. Edgar Hoover says there are 271,000 people dedicated to communism, others would place the number higher…

“I tried to find out from the department of justice, Senator McCarthy, Senator Jenner, Senator Hickenlooper, Rep. Velde, and the house un-American activities committee how many people have been convicted of spying for Russia and how many of them were Communists, but none of them answered my questions.

“Finally I read in a newspaper column by Roscoe Drummond that 13 Communists had been convicted of espionage and related activities

“Either J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI are ridiculously inept in being able to convict on five-one thousandths of one percent of the spies, or the story that all Communists are spies is a hoax.”

The letter goes on to say that FBI sources show that the average Communist does not stick with the party more than two or three years.

“No spy conspiracy could work with that kind of defection,” Gormly’s letter said.

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1973

Quaker war tax resistance methods and theories diversified and became more developed, as can be seen from the pages of the Friends Journal of 1973.

One thing that stood in the way of some Quakers (and some Quaker organizations) adopting war tax resistance was a bias toward being law-abiding, and a worry that civil disobedience might be one step too far on a slippery slope to anarchy. In the 15 January issue, lawyer (and Quaker) Allen S. Olmsted Ⅱ tried to remove this impediment:

Those who in sweeping terms condemn all law breaking seldom stop to inquire what the law actually is and who declares it. Is the policeman or the draft board or the tax collector the law? All of these have been reversed by the Courts time and again. Is the demonstrator who defies a police ban, a draft resister who refuses to shoulder a rifle, or a citizen who refuses to pay war taxes, ipso facto a law breaker? These citizens seek to vindicate their lawfulness, i.e. their loyalty to the Constitution, by breaking and then appealing the “law” which the lowest echelon of authority is seeking to enforce.

Perhaps the feature of the war resister’s mind which most clearly differentiates him from other law defiers is his complete loyalty to the spirit, as distinguished from the letter, of the law. This is most evident in his reaction to the tax laws. The spirit of the tax laws is, as some of us see it, that the government must go on and all of us should share the expense thereof according to our means.

Let us take the example of a retired school teacher, or minister whose income is somewhat over the exemption and deductibles. His income tax is, say, $100. He advises the tax collector that since 70 percent of the government’s income is used to prosecute an unjust war he is refusing to pay 70 percent of his tax and encloses his check for $30. He has defied the law and in due course the government will clamp down on his bank account and collect the $70 plus penalties.

Now take the example of the man with an income of $100,000, some of which is gained in selling war supplies to the government. Does he feel that in the spirit of the law he should contribute his fair share to the support of the government from which he has profited so handsomely? Merely to ask the question seems to most people quixotic, naive and bizarre. Our wealthy tax avoider employs a man learned in the letter of the law to show him how he may avoid any taxes whatever. As long as he keeps within the letter of the law he may pound his chest and say “What a smart boy am I.”

The difference between the tax refuser and the tax avoider is twofold: (1) The first violates the letter of the law, the second does not. (2) The first is motivated by the love of his country, his brothers, and his God; the other by the love of himself and his money.

Those who break unjust laws because they are unjust and not for personal profit or convenience, who do so in a humble spirit of submission to the moral law and without breaking the peace, are moving not toward anarchy but away from it. In the name of all that is holy — and I do mean holy — let us stop calling the nonviolent conscientious law resisters breeders of anarchy.

Immediately following that piece was a poem by Raymond Paavo Arvio that began “I am one with the tax refusers, / The long beards, the jail birds / … / The pacifists / The anarchists”.

And immediately after that was an article by Mary Timberlake that considered Quaker meetings and Quaker action to be the necessary one-two punch of Quaker practice:

I learn that 60 percent of all income taxes go to the military. I must refuse to pay that when my income becomes taxable. Ten percent of the phone bill is a federal excise tax, an appropriation approved by Congress in 1966 solely to provide additional funds for our operation in Vietnam (so reads the Congressional Record). I have a telephone. My meeting has a telephone. Dear Friends, the dollars the government collects from us in this way fall as napalm in Vietnam. I must refuse to pay all war taxes, urge you to refuse, take my personal funds out of banks so the government cannot get the money by placing a lien on my account; support instead an alternative fund — to send medical aid to North and South Vietnam, to rechannel this money into my own community where it is needed so desperately; to continue this effort after the war ends in Indochina, because what is the sense of winning the arms race and losing the human race? I do not want to go to prison. but more I don’t want a Vietnamese person or my American brother in uniform (his name is Billy) to die because of a bullet I bought.

The 1 February issue opened with a report about a creative action by Peace Investors of Eugene (PIE):

“More Pie for the People, Less for War” is the slogan of a fast-growing alternative fund begun by tax resisters in Eugene, Oregon. Called Peace Investors of Eugene (PIE), the fund is aimed at redistributing refused tax money to meet human needs by helping to finance a day care center, a free clinic, a crisis switchboard, and a half-way house. Last March the founders of the fund, including members and attenders of Eugene Meeting, handed small slivers of pumpkin pie to persons entering the state employment building and explained, “Sorry we can’t give you more, but the rest goes to the military.” 64 percent of each pie was handed to a person representing the military, and these large pieces were later distributed to local armed forces recruiters. Other creative actions by tax resisters involved in PIE include providing a peace-oriented tax consultant service and posting notices at places where 1040 forms are distributed advising people of the proportion of the federal budget assigned to war-making. At the IRS where such notices were prohibited three of the group stamped directly on the forms the phrase, “Warning: more than half of your taxes go for war.” Charles Gray of PIE says the group has grown not only through such actions, but also through their cooperative relationship with people in the community service groups to whom money has been given. “We feel that in a small way, the war machine has been replaced by new and more loving social priorities.”

The 1 March issue opened with “Some Friendly Tax Tips” from Meg Dickinson. Excerpts:

Fortunately for us there has been a dramatic change in tax resistance. The IRS itself has revised its forms to permit resistance without “falsifying” records, i.e. claiming more dependents than actually exist, a practice that even when done quite openly (with accompanying letters) left something to be desired.

For many… the essential question continues to be how to refuse much larger amounts, so that we are not only protesting but actually removing our taxes from the syndrome of destruction our government seems committed to. How can we not only protest, but stop paying for, stop buying war? This is where IRS’s revised W-4 helps.

For wage earners it is always possible to submit a new W-4 to the employer. The revised one does not even mention the word “dependents.” Instead it asks how many allowances you claim. “Allowances” is not defined, but is used to indicate dependents, special conditions such as blindness, and also amounts of anticipated itemized deductions. If you decide you will itemize your deductions and claim a peace deduction for the amount that might otherwise go to military expenditures, you simply add these allowances to those you have taken for family members, etc. On the form you give your employer you enter only the total.

Another part of the IRS revision changes the statement you must sign. No longer does one “under the penalties of perjury” certify that the number is correct. Instead one certifies “to the best of my knowledge and belief” that the number is right.

To figure how many allowances to claim, divide your annual salary by $750. This gives you the total number of allowances in your salary. You then add the number of allowances you have for family members, etc., to the number of allowances that correspond to the percentage of the remainder that you want to refuse. With $15,000 salary you have 20 allowances. If with a family of four (4) you wish to refuse 66 percent, subtract 4 from 20 (16 allowances left) and take 66 percent of 16 (13 allowances). Adding 13 to 4, you take 17 allowances.…

This brings up the question of what to tell your employer. Obviously individual decisions vary from complete candor to no discussion at all. IRS regulations are clear in making the wage earner, not the employer, responsible for the accuracy of the W-4.

One thing that should be understood is that if you take allowances for anticipated peace deductions (or Gandhian deductions or Woolman witnesses or name your own) you are committing yourself to filling out the regular 1040 Form the following April. Unless you have this intention you are misrepresenting your allowances on the W-4. Prosecution seems unlikely, according to tax resistance lawyers, but is a possibility. IRS has strengthened our claim of legality by actually returning money to surprising numbers of persons claiming war crimes deductions. There are even instances of individuals receiving refunds two years in a row.

A frequent question from those who have given tax refusal some thought concerns IRS’s collection. Doesn’t the government always get the money? Many who refused the phone tax found it was taken from their bank accounts (with hefty bank charges added sometimes) and felt too little had been accomplished by the action. The change in this situation lies not with IRS but with the development of creative ways to use the refused funds. Alternative funds have proliferated over the country, some giving the interest from the accounts to worthwhile projects, some using the whole amount to offer short-term loans to peace and community-oriented groups. The Philadelphia People’s Bail Fund is in large part using refused taxes for their contingency fund.

Collection can be delayed through a series of routine conferences, usually a total of four or five in a period of a couple years. These not only allow dialog with IRS people but keep your funds in the service of peace longer. The culmination of these can be a petitioning of tax court in your own behalf, thus contesting the constitutionality of various factors involved in taxes and military power.

Tax Resistance may seem complicated, but it is really a very simple concept: finding the ways you support war and removing them from your life. It is hard indeed to live in such a way as to take away the occasion for all war, but harder still to do it while helping to pay for the Pentagon’s program.

Robert Schultz responded to this with a letter-to-the-editor in the 1 May issue in which he wrote that he thought it was folly to try to only resist a certain percentage of the tax or a certain “war tax” (since all the money you give to the government is fungible), and also questioned whether Dickinson’s approach might be “un-Quakerly.” Excerpts:

[T]he encouragement to resort to subterfuges, claiming that you are entitled to certain deductions or allowances according to your particular religious or ideological scruples… does not seem quite honest to me…. I would prefer to come out in the clear and say frankly that I am not paying what the law requires me to pay because I do not approve of either the way, the means, or the end of the payments. Frankly, I believe that the recommendations suggested, if followed to their logical conclusion, are pointing directly to anarchy and chaos. Government has to function, and for an individual to take upon himself the responsibility of determining what that functioning should include strikes me as being a bit of arrogance.

I respect the Quakerly concern in regard to war. But I would rather further it by complete simplicity of living, a renunciation of all unnecessary income (following the example of John Woolman), a discriminating selection of all I consume or the services I use, and a careful examination of all sources of my income.

Also, one should avoid using any article or service upon which a Federal excise tax is levied. To do otherwise is to negate all one thinks one gains by withholding Federal taxes directly and raises the question of the sincerity of one’s convictions.

Dickinson was also mentioned in the 15 March issue, concerning a Tax Court filing in which she was trying to get the government “to return taxes taken from her during 1970.”

She has contributed amounts, comparable to those refused, to organizations she believes would use the money responsibly. She charges that payment of these taxes makes her an accomplice in war-making and is against her right of religious freedom.

The 1 May issue also opened with tales of tax resistance:

“Common Sense” is the name of a storefront tax consulting service set up this spring by members of the Roxbury Alternative Fund. This group of Boston area tax resisters drew on the expertise of trained tax accountants to provide two services: counseling for tax resisters and aid to anyone in preparing tax forms. The project ran from February through April 16. Clients often were poor or working class people. Many were helped to avoid tax overpayments, and a large degree of friendly communication was established. Members of Cambridge Meeting started the Roxbury Fund, and several participated in Common Sense.

On 6 May 1973 the North Columbus (Ohio) Friends Meeting decided to discontinue its telephone service “as the only course on which we are able to unite in meeting the dilemma of the payment or non-payment of the telephone tax.” For the previous two years, the Meeting had been unable to reach a consensus on phone tax resistance.

The 15 May issue of the Journal announced that “Young Friends of North America” was making available an “informational packet on Friends and War Taxes, including practical suggestions for the Friend troubled over taxation for war” called Who Buys the Guns?

The Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association met in mid-May. According to a Journal report on the gathering, “[f]riends were sobered by a call to be present at the June trial of a Durham, NC, Friend for refusal to pay income tax for war purposes.”

In the 1 June issue, Marion Dobbert and Jeannette Marquardt proposed what they called “Legal Resistance to War Tax”:

DeKalb, Illinois, Friends have developed a stop-gap measure for resistance to payment of war taxes. We suggest that all Friends wishing to protest war taxes in a legal manner file form 843 with the IRS for the return of that portion of their taxes which they calculate to be war-related. This form is used to file for the return of already paid taxes which have been “illegally, erroneously or excessively collected.” Friends should find it easy to claim that collecting taxes to be used for the making of war is as much a violation of their freedom of religion as would be required military service, since both service and tax money involve the individual in the taking of human lives.

The completed Form 843 is sent to the same office where you filed your Form 1040 for the year in question. The commissioner for that office then has six months to rule on the validity of your claim. If your request to have the war tax portion of your income tax returned is denied, you may appeal within the IRS, or take your case to the proper district court. In either case, you will need a lawyer.

Each individual can make his filing of Form 843 more effective by sending a letter with the form explaining that you are protesting war taxes, and why. A copy of this letter should be sent to each senator and representative, along with a covering letter asking for a change in the law to provide an alternative for conscientious objectors who wish to channel their tax money into projects other than military.

DeKalb Friends Meeting has created a committee on Legal Resistance to War Taxes to collect the names of interested individuals, keep them informed on what is happening, what they might do to help, and co-ordinate the efforts of groups throughout the nation. Eventually, we hope to find lawyers who will help us appeal adverse rulings on our Form 843 claims, both within the IRS system and in the courts. Anyone wishing to join in our work may sign the following and send it to: Legal Resistance to War Tax, c/o Dan and Marion Dobbert, 327 River Drive, DeKalb, Illinois 60115.

---

I am conscientiously opposed to war and must in conscience refuse to pay war taxes. I will therefore take the legal means open to me to avoid paying such taxes. As one step to this end. I join with like-minded people in the Legal Resistance to War Taxes and seek a provision in the tax laws for conscientious objectors.

Signed…

Ernest & Marion Bromley

Ernest Bromley had been resisting the federal income tax since the late 1940s. Here are some excerpts from a 1949 newspaper article on Bromley, whom it identified as “a Methodist minister”:

Draft For Back in News

Rev. Bromley Leads Anti-Tax Fight

Forty-three pacifists throughout the country, led by the Rev. Ernest Bromley, who created a stir last summer in Nassau when in a sermon he advised young men not to register for the draft, declared today they would refuse to pay federal income taxes this year as a “civil disobedience” protest against the government’s military expenditures.” [sic.]

A tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, pacifist organization with headquarters in New York City, announced the stand for 41 of the group. The Rev. Mr. Bromley now of Wilmington, Ohio, is chairman of the committee. Another list was issued at the same time by Walter G. Longstreth, Philadelphia lawyer, which included 11 names, all but two of which were contained in the Peacemakers’ statement.

…He has refused to pay taxes before.

The 25 men and 16 women of the Peacemakers group declared in a statement they were “determined upon a course of civil disobedience” being “unwilling to contribute to preparations for war.”

“We plead with our fellow citizens of the United States to join us in acting for peace by refusing to manufacture weapons of war, refusing to serve in the armed forces, and refusing to finance war preparations,” the statement said.

The committee said some would pay no part of their tax, since they maintain the major activity of the federal government is war, with 80 per cent of the national budget devoted to “past, present and future wars.” Others will refuse to pay that percentage of their tax which corresponds with the percentage which the government spends for military preparations. Some of the refusers are Quakers, while others are members of various other Christian and Jewish denominations and some follow a humanist philosophy.

In Albany. Walter R. Sturr, collector of internal revenue, said imprisonment of the group is unlikely since fraud probably would not be involved. He said the government would probably move against the group as against others owing tax money and could, as a last resort, seize property or bank accounts.

On the peacemakers’ list is Robert C. Friend, formerly a Unitarian religious education director in Schenectady, who moved to Los Angeles last summer where he is engaged in the same kind of work.

Bromley’s stand didn’t make the pages of the Friends Journal until 1973. In the 15 March issue was this note:

Do peace activists have any responsibility for federal income taxes on monies paid through a sharing fund to families whose wage-earners were in prison for draft and war resistance? This and other important questions are involved in a case brought by the Internal Revenue Service against Marion Bromley, a Cincinnati Quaker, and Ernest Bromley. The IRS has assessed the Bromleys $9,000 and Gano Peacemakers, Inc., which owns the home where they live, $21,000. This assessment is based on an IRS contention that the Peacemaker movement is synonymous with Gano Peacemakers, Inc., and that everyone who received checks from the Peacemaker Fund were actually employees of Gano Peacemakers and that therefore income tax, Social Security and other monies should have been withheld from the payments. The IRS, however, has been informed by many persons that there is a clear distinction between Gano Peacemakers, Inc., and other Peacemaker activities and organizations. Members also insist that recipients of aid from the sharing fund were not employees.

The Bromleys and Gano Peacemakers, Inc., are unwilling to cooperate with IRS in its attempt to collect thousands of dollars, mostly for war uses. They are also unwilling to cooperate with such total misrepresentation. Ernest Bromley points out that “the spirit and focus of any action should not be on the protection of property or personal security, but rather on continuing to deny money to a war-making government and to encourage tax refusal.” If any steps are taken toward seizure of assets or property of The Peacemaker or Gano Peacemakers, Inc., a campaign of public education, direct action and publicity will begin in the Cincinnati area.

In the 1 March 1975, the Journal published a follow-up on the case, with an interesting editor’s note attached (note also that Ernest Bromley is now also identified as a Quaker), written by Journal editor James D. Lenhart:

Pacifism and the IRS

“The position of the pacifist is unbearable if he (or she) does not undertake intense, practical action of his (or her) own… We need the firm rock of well-directed action if we are to resist the terrible drift dragging us towards reactions of fear, hatred, and violence.”

Pierre Ceresole

Editor’s Note: With post-Watergate disclosures of apparently illegal activities by officials of the Central Intelligence Agency and the Internal Revenue Service vying for space in national news media with statements by Pentagon spokesmen who are beating the drums for increased military spending in general and continued support for South Vietnam’s President Thieu in particular, the following news from Cincinnati of “intense, practical action” and its consequences probably will not receive very much attention anywhere else. So we decided to print it here.

Two acres and a house in Gano, twenty miles north of Cincinnati, were purchased by a small group of pacifists in 1950. In 1952 they formed a nonprofit corporation, Gano Peacemakers, Inc. and within eight years had paid off the mortgage on the property. Meanwhile, Ernest Bromley, a Quaker, had become editor of The Peacemaker, a small newspaper that promotes and publicizes nonviolence. In 1958, the publishing address was moved to the Gano residence but the records, funds and operations of the corporation and the newspaper were kept entirely separate. They still are separate.

Between 1966 and 1971 a sharing fund administered through the newspaper received money from those opposed to the Vietnam war who wanted to help support dependents of imprisoned war objectors. Monthly checks were issued to the dependents, most of whom were mothers of young children. Other expenditures were exclusively for the newspaper and other literature about nonviolence. There was no paid staff and all work was done without pay.

Ernest Bromley and his wife; Marion, have refused to pay income taxes for many years as a form of witness to the peace testimony. It is their claim that the money contributed to the sharing fund was not taxable and that even if it were, the Internal Revenue Service would have to take action against the newspaper. Instead, IRS made an assessment of almost $25,000 against Gano Peacemakers, Inc. and on January 31 two IRS agents posted notices of seizure on the front and back doors of the Gano house where the Bromleys live.

The Bromleys have openly and consistently stated their refusal to pay taxes for war. In fact, they do not favor going to court to protect their rights but instead rely on personal witness and public disclosures of the abuse of power. Ironically, while the Bromleys were taking and proclaiming their stand, the IRS’s recently revealed “Special Services Staff” was secretly investigating organizations and individuals opposed to United States policies in Southeast Asia. Its audit of The Peacemaker newspaper began during this same period.

This is what Ernest and Marion Bromley have to say.

“Writing on the day after IRS posted a notice of seizure on the house here in Gano, we wanted to let you know how we were feeling about the threatened sale.

“Of course we would hate to see such a horrendous sum as nearly $25,000 collected by the government for the budget which is so preponderantly spent for weapons, death and destruction. Since we feel so strongly about that, it seems to us that this is a good time to have attention focused on refusal to pay taxes for war. There aren’t many other ways people in this country can make meaningful protest about the proposed additional appropriations for Saigon and Phnom Penh, for example.

“If we had been under any illusions about the justice and ‘lawfulness’ of this system and this government, it might be quite shocking to see IRS proceed to seize property on the basis of an entirely false tax claim. There is no basis whatever for a claim against Gano Peacemakers, Inc. — and IRS knows this. But we have realized for a long time that governments do not dispense justice — they wield power.

“…we feel the same as we did in the beginning about noncooperation with IRS. Even though this claim is a very false one, we still feel that the witness is being made.

“We want to call attention to the actions of IRS in any way we can, and others may think of ways to do that.”

We invite readers to suggest ways. Meanwhile, you can write or send telegrams to either or both the District Director of IRS and the Regional Commissioner of IRS, Federal Office Building, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. And you can inform others of your actions and urge them to express their opinions, too. Painful as it might be to law-abiding Friends, you also could consider refusing to pay taxes yourself. You certainly would be in good, even Friendly, company.

There was a further follow-up in the 15 April 1975 issue:

Ernest Bromley, a Cincinnati Friend, continues to witness to the whole truth of the Quaker Peace Testimony by refusing to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service and by steadfastly proclaiming that payment of taxes to support a budget that spends billions for military purposes is wrong. And he continues to feel the weight of the cross he is bearing.

The IRS moved to seize his and Marion Bromley’s home… on January 31. On February 10 Ernest began distributing leaflets outside the Federal Office Building in downtown Cincinnati. The leaflets simply and clearly stated the facts as the Bromleys and others saw them, and clearly and simply pointed out that more than half of the 1976 federal budget will be spent for war or war-related purposes. On March 5 he was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and obstructing official business. While being transported to jail he received a two-inch cut on his head which officials could not explain. These charges were subsequently dismissed.

In this entire process Ernest Bromley has refused to recognize any authority of the IRS or the courts over himself. While he was in jail he fasted totally. When he is physically able, he intends to resume his witness.

The Executive Committee of Friends General Conference, meeting in Cincinnati the weekend of March 8–9, adopted a minute expressing general agreement that the arrest and charges are unjustified and supporting “these acts of conscience by Ernest Bromley and others that issue from leadings of the Spirit. Individual members of the Committee were encouraged to take specific actions in support of Ernest Bromley and Peacemakers.” These actions could include messages to the District Director of IRS and the Regional Commissioner of IRS…

The following illustration comes from the 1 May 1975 issue:

As you may remember from earlier Picket Line posts on the Bromleys, the story has a happy ending. Here is how the Journal put it in its 1 October 1975 issue:

A verbal commitment was received on Friday, August 29^th, from IRS Commissioner Donald Alexander and IRS Cincinnati District Director Dwight James that the Bromley/Gano Peacemaker House will be returned! Peacemakers presented IRS officials with a detailed analysis of IRS files and actions pointing out that the bases for the confiscation of the Bromley home were shot through with political biases, faulty logic, and lacks of evidence. At a meeting with Peacemakers that afternoon, IRS officials revealed their decision to return the property: “We realized that IRS was in a no-win situation and decided to do what was right.” Legal technicalities, however, are still being worked out.

Despite this cause for celebration, it must be kept in mind that little has changed: taxation for warmaking goes on, the production and development of weapons grows daily funded by our tax dollars, 11,000 persons and organizations remain on the secret IRS enemies list. Again, Friends are urged to take action to stop tax funding of war and to promote the development of a peaceful and loving world community.

And a follow-up to that came in the 15 December 1975 issue:

While Marion Bromley and her husband, Ernest, were struggling against the Internal Revenue Service’s illegal seizure of their home in Cincinnati, Marion wrote, “We appreciate the expressions of concern for us personally, and if we are unable to prevent sale of the house we will have to turn to the question of where we would relocate. But our energies now are directed to exposing the arrogant power methods the IRS revealed in dealing with Peacemakers, and in urging the people who learn of this to take some responsibility for their own support of a government which seems to be permanently locking the people into a war system… We think if enough public clamor is raised about the wholly fraudulent actions of IRS in the matter of seizure of the property of Gano Peacemakers it might cause IRS to remove the lien [Ed. It did.] and more important, it would serve the larger purpose of educating the public about the methods of the warfare state.” [Ed. Did it?]

The next mention of the Bromleys’s tax resistance that I found was, alas, in an obituary notice for Ernest Bromley in the June 1998 issue. Excerpts:

In 1942, Ernest was arrested for not paying an automobile tax, the proceeds of which would have gone to help pay for the expense of World War Ⅱ.… Throughout the 1950s Ernest worked with other Peacemakers on local and national political issues, including integration, opposition to nuclear weapons testing, and war tax refusal.… In the 1970s the Internal Revenue Service attempted to take their house away. Their resistance to this effort brought them to the attention of President Richard Nixon and Attorney General John Mitchell. Ultimately, they were able to keep the house because it belonged to the land trust. During the last 15 years of his life, despite failing eyesight, Ernest continued to correspond with peace activists and war tax refusers throughout the country.… In his last years, Ernest… maintained his communication with tax refusers, continuing his life-long radical pursuit of peace and justice.

Lyle & Sue Snider

Another case whose coverage began in 1973 was that of Lyle Snider. The 1 May issue gave this report:

Lyle Snider, clerk of Durham Meeting and teacher at Carolina Friends School, was arraigned March 9 for “willfully filing a false and fraudulent withholding statement.” He had filed a W-4 form in May, 1972 claiming 3 billion dependents — approximately one for every person on earth. Lyle’s reasoning: “At least half of our tax money will be spent on the instruments of war. Every person on earth depends on someone in this country to say ‘no’ to the military and to raise a voice to protest militarism.” Both Durham Meeting and the school have passed minutes in support of Lyle’s action. He faces up to one year of prison.

The 15 October issue gave this follow-up:

Tax resister Lyle Snider was tried June 11 in Greensboro, NC, for willfully filing a false and fraudulent W-4 form…. Over 80 supporters of Lyle and his wife, Sue, including students and staff from Carolina Friends School and Quakers from several North Carolina meetings, gathered at a pretrial celebration and at the court itself. Despite conflicts with the court system (Lyle was cited 16 times and Sue once for contempt because of refusal to stand for the judge), Lyle reports, “Sue and I and other supporting witnesses were able to communicate extensively and powerfully on the spiritual nature of our war tax resistance.” The jury required over a day of deliberation to find Lyle guilty. He was sentenced to 8 months for tax resistance and 30 days for contempt of court, and Sue was given 10 days for contempt. All sentences are being appealed.

Lyle writes of the trial experience: “We created a presence of love in and around the courtroom… fused with a strong and unequivocal witness for peace and nonviolence. Many people felt that the trial… had changed their lives in a very significant way… The suffering of the Indochinese people is still very much with us in our thoughts and prayers. We continue to search for ways of expressing our love and compassion for these people.”

The Sniders were back in the pages of the 15 September 1974 issue:

North Carolina Friends Lyle and Sue Snider have been acquitted by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals of charges stemming from Lyle’s claim of three billion dependents in order to avoid paying war taxes. The court found that Lyle had engaged in “hyperbole,” not willful fraud, that he was exercising his right of free speech, and that persons may choose not to stand for a judge without being guilty of contempt. Last summer Lyle was sentenced to nine months in jail after a trial attended by some 80 supporters of the Quaker couple.

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1976

I was a little too young to be much of an observer of the political scene, but I remember 1976 as being something of an orgy of innocent patriotism. America was sick of being cynical and wanted to go back to being stupid — besides, the Vietnam War was mostly over, at least for most Americans, and we’d given Nixon the heave-ho — and so there were plenty of red-white-and-blue commemorations of the bicentennial of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The Friends Journal wasn’t quite so willing to get with the star-spangled program. In particular, it intensified its coverage of war tax resistance during the bicentennial year.

The 15 February issue was the Friends Journal’s first special issue devoted to war tax resistance.

It starts off with a couple of inspiring quotes on the subject from A.J. Muste and David Dellinger, then opens with a piece by Jennifer S. Tiffany on how she met the challenge of deciding whether to pay or to resist. Excerpts:

This fall was a time when I was grappling a great deal with the question of war tax resistance. To start with, I knew and had known for a long time that I could not be clear in paying taxes to any state which would use them to pay for war-making. Particularly, I could not contribute to the nuclear death race between this nation and the Soviet Union. Perhaps it goes back to the civil defense tests and simulated nuclear air-raids which had terrified and confused me when I was a child. Anyway, the imperative, the need to keep clear of war (to use Bruce Baechler’s words), had always been strong. I had been acting on it, in small ways, for a long while-avoiding earnings beyond the taxable minimum, for example, and claiming six “peace dependents” on my W-4 form when my income did exceed this minimum. I also corresponded with the IRS concerning my views and actions. However, a disclarity still existed regarding full resistance, with all the possible ramifications on my life and lifestyle. The question was, to me, was I strong enough and centered enough to maintain a taxable income level, restructure my life in such a way as to prevent eventual government levies, and go on with my resistance? Could I face creatively the possibility of putting a good deal of energy into court cases with the eventuality of prison? I came into meeting for worship one morning at the height of these grapplings.

As I settled in, I was astounded. Somehow the fears and conflicting leadings within me changed. They did not fade or diminish, but grew into context. The spirit of the meeting, the presence of loving Friends, who loved whether or not they agreed with one another’s approach, literally overwhelmed me. The presence of God wholly covered the gathering, and finally clearness came.

Our God, the Presence in our worship and acts of witness, is a gentle, healing, loving, empowering God, one who speaks strongly and softly from within us. At the same moment as making demands on our lives, this Presence says, “You need not fear; if you act on this I will sustain and strengthen you throughout the whole process. I am…” This was a moment of resolution for me. I was no longer entangled in a negative refusal to pay taxes, but was healed and sustained and led to a positive witness. I could go on.

It is in this context that tax resistance has its roots and life. War tax resistance, any resistance to war and to those authorities which bring about war, is not a negative presence: every no implies a yes, and this no to killing and death can be a yes to healing and life. Within tax resistance dwell seeds which can help a whole new order to grow — seeds which deny fear and powerlessness in the face of death; seeds which lead us to the creation of healing alternatives to structures which sustain death. As John Woolman puts it, “to turn all we possess into the channel of universal love becomes the whole business of our lives.”

I can speak only of my moment of resolution, the clearness and joy which is liberated in my life through a tax witness. As I see it, this issue of Friends Journal is not a coercive tool, saying “you must for these reasons refuse to pay your taxes or I will no longer judge you to be a good Friend.” The point of this issue is not to define terms for judgment, to draw lines of inclusion and exclusion. Our faith is an experiential one, and your experience of real clarity is as right and valid for you as mine is for me. The point is to lay ourselves open to what speaks truthfully in us, to really open ourselves to the spirit which utterly denies war, to really grapple with the questions this raises and the demands it makes on our lives. One of those questions has to do with tax resistance. This is an invitation to grapple with it, and a reaching out which says there is a great company of people, past and present, who have done so.

There is a process of empowerment, growth and the birth of community among people which can take root through tax resistance. First comes the knowledge that the authorities of death are not all-powerful, that the laws and structures which sustain any war machine are in fact quite weak. As Marion Bromley says in her article, “What can they take away that is of real value?” Second dawns the realization that alternatives are possible: through the flaws in the death order, we glimpse the order of life. And, although such consequences as possible imprisonment or loss of property, and the inward struggle with fear, are largely borne alone, the vision is shared by a growing company of sisters and brothers. Isolation is hard to feel when so many glimpse the possibility of a new order — an order beyond war. Finally and especially, tax resistance often grows as an act of ministry, an act of obedience to the loving and healing spirit. War tax resistance is one aspect of a community set on fire with the presence of a gentle, empowering God.

Bruce Baechler thought the question of whether Quakers should resist war taxes was a no-brainer. He wrote in from prison (where he was doing time for draft resistance) with this defense of war tax resistance. Excerpts:

Do Friends support war? At one time this could be answered with a “not at all.” These days, though, it seems to depend on how one defines support. Friends, generally, denounce war in the strongest terms. Indeed that’s all many people know about us. But for the most part Friends can no longer claim to renounce, or “utterly deny” war.

Friends today are not compelled to bear arms… instead of fighting with outward weapons ourselves, we are merely asked to buy the weapons through taxation, and leave the dirty work to others. And most of us do.

Yet we cling to our traditional peace testimony, often expressed as early Friends did in the Declaration of 1660:

We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever; this is our testimony to the whole world.

This is strong language. One cannot, without being hypocritical, utterly deny something and still give it material support. But most Friends do.

There are many reasons given for paying taxes. Most of these are quite valid, if one thinks of tax resistance as a protest. But I see a difference between various types of protests, such as vigils and letters to Congress, and nonsupport, or remaining clear of war, as by tax resistance.

In protesting, one makes her/his views known, but leaves it up to someone else (the government) to make the decision. Governments are not noted for their receptivity to the pacifist message, and it is unlikely they will be in the near future. I am not deriding protest — much has been accomplished through it. I am just saying that it is not enough.

Nonsupport, on the other hand, emphasizes individual responsibility. To refuse to pay one’s taxes is to accept responsibility for the way they would be spent, and to refuse to allow them to be spent for immoral purposes.

Tax resistance should not mean just withholding taxes from the government. An integral part of tax resistance is to redirect the money normally spent for taxes into life supporting channels. In many places this is done through Alternative Funds, where the resisters in a community band together to make most effective use of the money. Thus not only is money diverted from warmaking, but at the same time it is made available as a resource for peaceful activities.

Perhaps the biggest problem most Friends have with not paying for war is that it is illegal. One faces the prospect of prison for it, and this alone is enough to make most people give it only superficial consideration. Hopefully the World Peace Tax Fund, if established by Congress, will alleviate some of this problem in much the same way that the Conscientious Objector provisions in the draft laws gave a legal alternative to the army. But in the meantime the problem remains.

Friends have often suffered for their beliefs. Throughout our history large numbers of Friends have been imprisoned, tortured, and killed for preaching and practicing the message of the Inward Light. Would you stay away from a Meeting for Worship if to go meant certain arrest? Would you attend but not speak when moved, if that would be dangerous (a situation facing Korean Friends today)? Would you join the army to avoid prison? Kill to avoid being killed? The question is where to draw the line. When, to you, does the personal suffering involved in a course of action outweigh the reasons for taking that course? Each person must decide for her/himself.

Another response to the problem of imprisonment is that if any substantial number of Friends did engage in tax resistance, the likelihood of their being imprisoned would be small, and some provision in the law would probably be made for them, thus eliminating the problem and encouraging more people to resist.

Jack Cady shared his long, meandering letter to the Director of the IRS. Excerpts:

[O]ur first confrontation… will be the examination of my tax return. I expect the examination is prompted by my refusal last year to pay half of my income tax. I will refuse. to pay half of the tax again this year, although because of withholding, your agency already has most of the money. I refuse to pay half of the tax on various grounds, some of which are moral, some of which are legal. The refusal is prompted by the expenditure by our government of over fifty percent of tax monies on the maintenance and purchase and use of armies and weapons. Through its agency, Internal Revenue Service, the United States Government seeks my complicity in the violation of twenty centuries of moral teaching. The government is in further violation of the Constitution of the United States. It is also in violation of various international treaties and agreements, and is, in fact, engaged in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity.

In requiring that I pay taxes for the support of war, planning for war, offensive weapons and the maintenance of a standing armed force sufficient to engage combat on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government through its agent IRS is in violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees my religious freedom. I am a member of the Port Townsend meeting for worship of the Society of Friends (Quaker). The Quaker belief and effective detachment from war dates from the beginnings of the Society in the middle 1660s. The precedent of refusal to pay war taxes in America dates from 1755 when John Woolman, John Churchman, and Anthony Benezet refused to pay for the French and Indian wars. Nonviolence and refusal to pay or endorse either side in a combat dates in U.S. history from the revolution when Quakers who refused to kill were stoned or beaten under the brand of Tory. I claim my devout belief in God and the injunction that we may not kill as sufficient reason to refuse this tax. I would expect that opposition to this view would also have to overcome three hundred years of Quaker nonviolence and two hundred years of U.S. acceptance of Quaker attitudes that insist on nonviolence.

[I]n asking taxes, the U.S.A. through its agent IRS seeks my complicity in crimes against peace and crimes against humanity as defined by the Nuremberg Principles. These principles hold that citizens of a nation are guilty of crimes committed by that nation if they acquiesce to those crimes when, in fact. a moral choice is open to them.

In requiring that I pay taxes to support a war industry and armed forces capable of contending on a worldwide scale, the U.S. Government is threatening both my moral and my physical existence. I am not being protected, because the U.S. builds atomic weapons, B-1 bombers, atomic submarines, poison gas, lasers, rocketry, napalm and all of the other expensive paraphernalia of war. These do not protect me. They invoke the suspicion and fear of other nations, and they provoke among other nations the building and stockpiling of similar weapons.

[T]he U.S. now gives every indication that it is, in fact, not a nation of laws but a nation of men and corporations. This, despite the resignation from office of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew. I charge that the freedom of the citizen is largely illusory, and that the payment of taxes, the keeping of tax records, the invasion of privacy by IRS and other agencies of government, the making of rules by agencies (rules that have the force and effect of law but which are not to be challenged in courts), the maintenance of records or files on the political, religious, economic and moral statements and actions of the individual, the power to levy fines and licenses by agency rule, and the presumption by government that citizens are guilty of any agency charge and must therefore bear the burden of proof of their innocence; all of these show the citizens of the U.S. are no longer free.

I have two main intentions in this tax refusal. The first is quite clear. I do not intend to pay for the destruction of other human beings, nor endorse by word or deed the crimes of the United States. The second intent is a little more nebulous but it is just as strong. It is strong because I love my country.

In this refusal I intend that the United States will display by its action whether or not a citizen, raised to believe in U.S. principles of freedom, equality, protection under the laws; raised, in fact, under statements like, “With a proper regard for the opinions of mankind,” can indeed trust and believe in the way he has been raised. Either the Constitution is sound or it is not. The U.S. will either honor its national and international commitments or it will not. The courts will either face issues or the courts will duck them.

…If the rules of IRS are bigger than the Constitution, the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Principles and the Christian teaching of two thousand years, then I believe it is time that the U.S. acknowledge this…

The next article came from Marion Bromley. Excerpts:

Ernest and I began a tax refusers’ newsletter soon after our marriage in 1948. In all the time since, only a tiny proportion of Friends and other pacifists have become tax refusers, and we sometimes try to understand why. It has been, for us, more a personal imperative than a carefully reasoned political position, though we have done what we could to expound on all aspects of refusing to allow one’s labor to be taxed for war and weaponry.

Most people, whether they are pacifists or not, seem to respect our “right” to refuse taxes when we have a chance to explain how we feel about it. In turn we have to accept the “right” of others to continue to pay large sums in taxes, even though the U.S. budget continues to be overwhelmingly devoted to war and the war system.

Before 1800 taxes were levied largely for specific things such as bridges, schools, highways. A levy for war was as separate as the others. Quakers, Mennonites and a few others who had strong scruples against paying for the militia or for gunpowder refused to pay and sometimes suffered distraint of goods or imprisonment for their stand. When all these items began to be lumped together into one, general tax, it was no longer so simple an issue. Some, with a considerable feeling of relief, began to pay; others paid more out of frustration. And one of the most potent testimonies against war during the 1700s became lost.

Now, in 1975, probably no reasonable person believes that the billions to be spent for weapons research, deployment of armies and nuclear weapons, nuclear submarines prowling the ocean floor, planes carrying nuclear bombs, and intercontinental ballistic missiles will be in any sense a “defense” for anyone. Since such policies and practices will probably lead to a nuclear holocaust at some future time, maybe distant, maybe near, paying for these weapons comes close to being an evil act. It may be that the reason most Friends do not see it in that light is that they are conscientiously committed to liberalism — to the direction the federal government began in the 1930s and from which there is now no retreat. The federal government, in order to ease suffering and to maintain control over its own populace, began to assume some social responsibility. Possibly most Friends are in the same position as those who began paying the “mixed” taxes in the 1800s. But in the past ten years the whole world has witnessed the kind of horror that a powerful military state can unleash even without resort to the ultimate weapon.

…In an individual such behavior would be deemed madness. Would a mad individual be permitted to continue such activities because that individual was also performing some useful services?

Another aspect of liberalism that has probably influenced Friends greatly in the past fifty years is the commitment to law. I cannot explain why most Friends think it is almost a religious principle to honor the law and the courts, while I feel it is very low on my list of loyalties. My religious instincts are insulted when I observe a judge in the robes of a priest, high above others in the courtroom, the witnesses and observers in pews and the bailiff enforcing a hushed silence. My view is that this holy-appearing scene is for the purpose of defending the property and the power of the people who have those commodities. It is the same in a socialist or a capitalist state.

It is certainly an acceptable arrangement for people to agree on certain codes or laws, agreements about property. I would not disobey laws for frivolous reasons. But I have no qualms about disobeying laws which would force me to pay for murder and other crimes related to the war system.

Civil disobedience which requires long-term adherence, such as arranging to make one’s living without the withholding system, perhaps is considered impossibly difficult by many conscientious people. For many Friends, commitment to a service type vocation seems to require “fitting in” with a professional life style. The scale has not been invented which could balance service that is beneficial to others with the negative effects of supporting warmaking and possibly silencing one’s conscientious stirrings. The only contribution I can make to such considerations is my testimony that refusing to pay income taxes has proved to be a blessing in many ways. For one thing, it resulted in our “backing into” a simple life style, consuming less than we otherwise would. Friends who have valued simplicity know of its blessings — the simple life is more healthful, more joyful, more blessed in every way.

A new friend we met following seizure of Gano Peacemakers’ property, our home for 25 years, wrote us after moving from Cincinnati that he supposed we were having a very sad summer at Gano this year, knowing that we would be evicted in the fall. This notion was quite contrary to the way we felt. We were enjoying the time here more than ever before. The growing season seemed more productive than ever, and the surroundings more beautiful. We were working very hard, preparing leaflets, signs and press releases, corresponding, thinking of new ways to tell everyone who would listen that the IRS claims were fraudulent and politically motivated. We expected to be evicted but never had the feeling that we would “lose” in the struggle.

(The following paragraph, concerning the eventual IRS surrender in the Gano Peacemakers case, is largely obscured in the PDF.)

One of the pleasant feelings we have about the reversal of the sale (besides knowing that we can continue to live on these two acres) is that many people have told us they got a real lift when they heard that some “little people” had prevailed in the struggle with the IRS. We had the feeling that our daily leafleting and constant public statements during the seven months’ campaign had, at the least, the effect of showing that people need not fear this government agency. People do fear the IRS and that is an unworthy attitude. What can they take away that is of real value?

Jack Powelson struck a dissenting note, listing war tax resistance among a number of popular Quaker positions that he felt to be sentimentally motivated and economically naive. Excerpt:

Friends are concerned about paying taxes to a government that allocates a high proportion of its budget to the military. But we also know that if enough Friends refused to pay taxes so that the government was seriously impeded in its operations, the first items to be cut would be welfare and education, and the poor would suffer.

The Journal then quoted John A. Reiber on his vision for “a cultural revolution with political implications, not a political revolution with cultural implications.” Excerpt:

The most effective social changes are not going to come from within the system, but without it. We must realize that the vast, impersonal and powerful institutions are not intrinsic to our survival and well-being, but, in fact, extrinsic and harmful.

What we must do to achieve a cultural (r)evolution is to, first of all, withdraw our support of our unendurable, tyrannical and inefficient institution of the government. One way of doing this is through tax resistance. But tax resistance, by itself, is only a part of the solution. Money, time and energy should be channelled into alternatives to our technological mass consumption/ mass waste society, our irrelevant and oppressive educational institutions and our mass media which don’t meet our informational needs.

Craig Simpson next gave a report on war tax resistance as it was practiced internationally. Excerpts:

During the Peace Research and Peace Activists Conference in Holland in July, 1975, I met Susumu Ishitani, a member of the Japanese Conscientious Objectors to War Taxes Movement (COMIT). The group is the first of its kind in Japanese history and was started in November, 1974. It is made up of Christian pacifists — Mennonites, FOR members and Quakers — as well as non-church pacifists. The group apparently has been growing rather quickly. They have meetings all over Japan, print articles in newspapers, and hold press conferences. Their emphasis is on the refusal of the 6.5% of their taxes which goes for the so-called “Self-Defense Forces.” They have even written a “Song of 6.5% or 6.5% for a Peaceful World” protesting war taxes and expressing the need for money to stop death and the pollution of our environment. Susumu is a wonderful and gentle member of the group. Outside of his job as a university professor he is active as a member of the local Friends Meeting in Minato-ku (Tokyo). He also trains students in nonviolence and works to raise consciousness about the Japanese government’s involvement with the repressive South Korean government. He clearly sees the importance of not sending his money to the government for destructive purposes.

COMIT was still in operation at least as late as 2000, but I haven’t been able to find much about them on-line.

France… has a long tradition of resistance to war and the military. The tax refusal movement began in its present state in 1966 during the first French atomic tests in the South Pacific when a number of people decided to refuse the 20% of their taxes which would go to the war department. This money was redistributed to organizations working for peace and developing social alternatives. Groups soon were organizing in Orleans, Paris, Mulhouse, Lyon, and Tours and by 1970 were working in cooperation with one another. They then made a decision to broaden the movement by asking people to refuse only 3% of their income tax. They felt this way they would be able to attract more people because of the minimum of risk. Many of these people decided to redistribute their money to the peasant-worker struggle in Larzac.

Larzac is a plain in Southern France where a group of peasants, farmers and shepherds have been resisting the expansion of an army training base onto land where they have lived and worked for centuries. The Larzac struggle has become extremely important in France. It receives broad support from leftists, environmentalists, workers and antimilitarists. The peasants, who have come to believe strongly in nonviolent struggle, have used some very creative tactics to draw attention to their plight. For example, they drove their tractors from Southern France onto the streets of Paris. On the way, they were met in Orleans by 113 tax refusers who gave their tax money to the peasant struggle instead of to the military. This link between the peasant struggle against the military and the people who refused taxes solidified the movement and both benefited.…

By September, 1973, 400 French people had become tax refusers and at latest count as many as 4,000 are giving their money to Larzac instead of the government. Many farmers, workers and pacifists are involved now in the refusal of taxes to support the Larzac struggle. Most recently in France, pacifists are discussing and organizing for 100% refusal of their taxes as their non-cooperation with the military becomes more consistent with their lifestyles.

There were also several letters to the editor on the subject:

• Mary Bye wrote in to explain the rationale behind her tax resistance. “I believe that my tax dollars go to support a system which perpetuates misery and suffering in large parts of the world. Here at home we have set up a monstrous military budget while the programs for the poor, the minorities, the disadvantaged and the defenseless are being cut. I believe that the first step to moral health is to realize the callous role of oppressor we, as a nation, play abroad and at home. The second step is to act.” She said tax resistance works for her because “I know of no other way to introduce this concern into the courts, and… I want to commit my money to help meet human needs neglected by the government. I give voluntarily an amount equal to that computed by IRS regulations to help build a community of caring.”
• Ross Roby wrote in to promote the World Peace Tax Fund Act. “Essentially, this bill would provide conscientious objectors to war (male and female, young and old) an alternative to having their Federal tax payments used to finance government agencies that wage war and those that contribute to the waging of war by our government and by other governments of this world.” He complained that the proposal hadn’t gotten much Quaker support: “Are we unable to recognize a friendly hand when it does not come in Quaker garb? Or, has vocal pacifism fallen so irrevocably into the hands of radical resistants that a congressional bill which proposes accommodating conscientious objection to the realities of the Internal Revenue Service (and vice versa) is automatically dismissed?” He described the mechanism of the Act this way: “It sets up a Fund for Peace to which we, conscientious objectors to war, would automatically contribute as we paid our usual federal income tax. If the federal budget were determined, by an impartial authority, to contain sixty per cent for military purposes, then sixty cents of each dollar we pay would enhance the treasury of a fund that builds peace…”
• Jim Forest wrote about his decision to stop tax withholding from his paycheck by filing a new W-4 form. “We will be using these moneys for human needs that aren’t being adequately met in the present world: hunger, housing, resistance to militarism, various efforts for impoverished people, etc. We receive fund appeals each day which, had we the means, we would respond to, or respond to more generously. Now we will.”
• Donald Hultgren gave a report of Robin Harper’s talk about war tax resistance and charitable redirection at the Quaker Meeting in Cornwall, New York.
• Harold R. Regier, the Peace and Social Concerns secretary of the General Conference Mennonite church, wrote to thank the Journal for its “encouragement in our efforts to work at war tax payment/resistance issues.”

Harold R. Regier, the last letter writer I mentioned, said that: “One of our efforts along this line was to convene a war tax conference to look particularly at the theological and heritage bases for war tax resistance.” The Journal article that followed concerned this conference. A note at the top of that article said that “[o]ne hundred twenty persons registered” for a Mennonite/Brethren in Christ sponsored conference to seek theological and practical discernment on war tax issues.” That conference issued a summary statement, which the Journal reprinted. Excerpts:

After considering the New Testament texts which speak about the Christian’s payment of taxes, most of us are agreed that we do not have a clear word on the subject of paying taxes used for war. The New Testament statements on paying taxes (Mark 12:17, Romans 13:6–7) contain either ambiguity in meaning or qualifications on the texts that call the discerning community to decide in light of the life and teachings of Jesus.

Although those in the Anabaptist tradition were generally consistent in their historical stand against individual participation in war, they were not of one mind regarding the payment of taxes for war. Evidence suggests that most Anabaptists did pay all of their taxes willingly; however, there is the early case of the Hutterite Anabaptists, a sizable minority in the Anabaptist movement, who refused to pay war taxes.

In the later stages of Anabaptist history there is no clear-cut precedent on the question of war taxes. During the American Revolution most Mennonites did object to paying war taxes, yet in a joint statement with the Brethren they agreed to pay taxes in general to the colonial powers “that we may not offend them.”

The record continued to be mixed until the present day. Only a small minority chose to demonstrate their allegiance to Christ through a tax witness.

So far most discernment on the war tax issue has been done on an individual level as opposed to a church or congregational level. Although individuals struggling with the issue have been supported by similarly concerned brothers and sisters, wider church support has been lacking. While recognizing the need for a growing consensus in these matters, we know that not all in the Mennonite/Brethren in Christ fellowship are agreed on an understanding of scriptural teaching and a faithful response regarding war taxes. We are ready to acknowledge this disagreement and seek to continue discerning God’s will in this. But as a church community, we feel we should be conscious of the convictions and struggles of our sisters and brothers and supportive of the steps they have taken and are considering.

And all that’s just from one issue!

The 1 March issue included an article by Robin Harper about the Brandywine Alternative Fund, one of “a series of experiments [that] go by various names: fund for humanity, people’s life fund, life priorities fund, war tax resistance alternative fund.” Excerpts:

As many as forty sprang into existence in 1970, 1971, and 1972 as the country’s agony over Vietnam reached a crescendo.

Though each is organized and operated a bit differently, the basic concept is to pool federal war taxes (both telephone and income) conscientiously withheld from the IRS and redistribute them, by loans or grants, to community groups working for peace, social justice, and other areas of social change.

…the Brandywine Alternative Fund serves Delaware and Chester Counties just west of Philadelphia. Although the greater part of the Brandywine fund comes from “reallocated” federal taxes, we also encourage deposits of personal savings. This policy has not only enlarged the fund but has also broadened participation to include persons eager to help “reorder our nation’s priorities away from the military” who don’t choose to use the particular method of principled tax resistance. In addition, seven monthly meetings, churches and civic groups have made deposits or contributions to the alternative fund, following the precedent of London Grove Friends Meeting. This development of religious and other community groups investing in Brandywine is, I believe, a rather new departure for the alternative fund movement and offers an opportunity for sensitizing even larger numbers of people to issues of war preparations, civilian priorities and tax accountability.

Through the growth of our alternative fund, we have begun to take our central concern to the people of the communities in which we live; we are seeking creative ways to support financially some of those groups which are addressing a range of social and economic problems largely neglected by government; and we have undertaken the task of stripping the mask off one of our most powerful institutions — the IRS — as we portray its grim role in the betrayal of our society’s and world’s ultimate security.

The 1 June issue had some Revolutionary War-era history lessons. Nonviolence theorist Gene Sharp wrote an article on “The Power of Nonviolent Action” in which he pointed out (among other things) the usefulness of tax resistance in the struggle for American independence:

During the Townshend resistance, in January, 1769… for example, a London newspaper reported that because of the refusal of taxes and the refusal to import British goods, only 3,500 pounds sterling of revenue had been produced in the colonies. The American non-importation and non-consumption campaign was estimated by the same newspaper at that point to have cost British business not a mere 3,500 pounds but 7,250,000 pounds in lost income. Those figures may not have been accurate, but they are significant of the perceptions of the time. The attempt to collect the tax against that kind of opposition was not worth the effort, and the futility of trying eventually became apparent.

Finally, Lyle Tatum examined the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s activity around 1776. Excerpts:

Although the Yearly Meeting was clear that members should not participate in military activities or pay direct war taxes, some areas were more difficult to decide. Bills of credit, a form of negotiable instrument sanctioned by the colonies, were controversial. The use of them stood in a similar position to the payment of taxes today. To those Friends who were trying to get other Friends to stop using bills of credit, the Yearly Meeting minuted a bit of advice:

…we affectionately exhort those who have this religious Scruple, that they do not admit, nor indulge and Censure in their Minds against their Brethren who have not the same, carefully manifesting by the whole tenor of their Conduct, that nothing is done through Strife, or Contention, but by their Meekness, Humility and patient Suffering, that they are the Followers of the Prince of Peace.

Philadelphia Yearly Meeting of 1776 met in September, just a little more than two months after the original fourth of July. As we have seen, pressure on the peaceable testimony had been growing over the previous few years. In the face of this, the Yearly Meeting minuted:

…we cannot consistent with our Christian peaceable Testimony… be concerned in the promoting of War or Warlike Measures of any kind, we are united in Judgment that such who make religious Profession with us, & do either openly, or by Connivance, pay any Fine, Penalty, or Tax, in lieu of their personal Services for carrying on the War under the prevailing Commotions, or do consent to, and allow their Children, Apprentices, or Servants to act therein do thereby violate our Christian Testimony, and by so doing manifest that they are not in Religious Fellowship with us…

In spite of their many hardships, Friends were holding firm. Loyalty oaths were going strong in 1778. It was minuted:

…in some places Fines or Taxes are and have been imposed on those who from Conscientious Scruples, refuse or decline making such declaration of Allegiance and Abjuration, it is the united Sense and Judgment of this Meeting, that no Friend should pay any such Fine or Tax…

War tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1992

There was a great deal about war tax resistance in the Friends Journal in 1992, in part because of the occupation of the Randy Kehler/Betsy Corner home which the IRS was trying to auction off, and in part because of the IRS suit against the Journal to try to force it to pay its editor’s resisted taxes, and in part because of the Peace Tax Fund bill’s first congressional hearing.

A note in the January issue pointed out that politicians were playing a name game that had apparently fooled some Quakers into thinking that the telephone excise tax had been transformed into something benign:

The telephone tax continues as a source of money for military expenditure, contrary to recent confusion about its status. The tax, which was due to expire in December 1990, was extended under the Act for Better Child Care. Those who proposed the act were searching for a way to finance their new program and seized upon the telephone tax as their “new” source of money. However, the phone tax revenues continue to go into the General Fund, as always, and are not earmarked for the child care programs. More than 50 percent of the General Fund is used for military expenditure. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee recommends that conscientious resistance to the telephone tax continue, as it can have a powerful impact if enough people are involved.

That issue also had a follow-up on the “Alternative Revenue Service” protest:

In 1991, the Alternative Revenue Service reports that individuals redirected $104,740 of their federal income taxes away from the military to areas of human need. The total includes $12,898 redirected through the ARS, $38,416 redirected by Alternative Funds, and $53,426 that individuals redirected to social action and relief programs. The Alternative Revenue Service campaign is designed to educate taxpayers about how their federal income tax dollars are used. The service provides the EZ Peace Form, which participants can use in registering their opposition to military spending at the time they file their taxes. The service reports that 70,000 EZ Peace Forms were distributed nationwide last year. This year’s form is simplified, with clearer instructions.

The February issue brought the news that the Peace Tax Fund promoters had finally managed to get a Congressional Committee hearing for their bill, which was scheduled for that Spring. “The hearing will be informational to determine the need for such legislation, not a preparation for floor action. The need is assessed from the testimony of both individuals and religious bodies. The hearing will support the bill by providing a permanent public record, by lending it legitimacy, by possibly attracting more serious consideration from prospective cosponsors, and by providing a record of congressional scrutiny. The hearing will be brief, not lending itself to extended exchanges. However, written testimony can be added and will become part of the official record.”

A follow-up in April described the latest Peace Tax Fund bill as one that “would amend the Internal Revenue Code to permit qualified conscientious objectors to have part of their federal taxes — that part equal to the military portion of the federal budget — to be paid into a fund for peace-related projects.” It encouraged readers to submit “written testimony for the official hearing record,” to publicize and perhaps attend the hearing, to contact Congressional representatives and encourage them to attend and to support the bill, and to donate money to the cause.

The August issue described how the 21 May hearing before the House Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures went — “the first actual hearing held since a Peace Tax Fund Bill was first introduced in Congress 20 years ago.” Excerpts:

“If we give the right to a person to withhold their body from a war as a conscientious objector, that person should be able to withhold his money as well.”

So spoke Sen. Mark Hatfield in his lead-off testimony…

…Several hundred spectators from across the country packed the hearing room. Many attended as concerned individual taxpayers. Others came as members of religious denominations and peace groups long associated with the Peace Tax Campaign. Three chartered buses, one from Lancaster, Pa., two others from Philadelphia, swelled the numbers by some 150 supporters. When the last of them filed in from a late-arriving bus to find all spectator seats occupied, Chairman Charles Rangel stopped the hearings momentarily, inviting standing-room only observers to move forward and to occupy empty seats normally reserved for officials and the press. Many did so. Veterans of peace demonstrations, several parents holding small children, young bearded men in simple dress, older couples from the peace churches created a colorful patchwork as they mixed with congressional aides, heads of foundations, and Capitol bureaucrats in business suits.

…Over 2,300 letters in support of the Peace Tax Fund Bill were bound in large volumes and set on a front table to be presented to the committee. From 50–100 such letters a day continued to arrive as of the time of the hearing.

Following the introductory testimony of Mark Hatfield, lead sponsor of the bill (S.689) in the Senate, there were also presentations by four members of Congress: Andy Jacobs (lead sponsor of the bill in the House), Nancy Pelosi, and John Conyers.…

…[A] panel of religious leaders testified. One, Thomas Gumbleton, Roman Catholic bishop from Detroit, and past president of Pax Christi, pointed out that two of the first leaders of the church, John and Peter, said that sometimes it is necessary to obey God before obeying the law. How much better it would be, Gumbleton said, for COs to be able to pay all their taxes, knowing their money would be used for life-affirming purposes.

William Davidson, retired Episcopal bishop of western Kansas, a CO in World War Ⅱ, has actively opposed war since 1939. “Having lived past draft age, I have been saddened and conflicted each year having to pay taxes to support war,” he said. The Episcopal Peace Fellowship has consistently supported war tax resistance as a religious witness.

John A. Lapp, executive secretary of Mennonite Central Committee, Akron, Pa., spoke on behalf of the three historic peace churches (Mennonites, Quakers, and Church of the Brethren). The issue of war-related taxes is one of religious freedom, Lapp said. “Many of us feel the pain of having our religious institutions serve as tax collectors for war.”

During committee questioning, Representative Jacobs asked Rabbi [Phil] Bentley [with the Jewish Peace Fellowship], “Is [passage of this bill] going to give rise to requests for similar legislation from people who don’t want their money going for a golf course?”

…[Friends Journal] editor-manager Vint Deming, associate editor Melissa Elliott, typesetter Susan Jordhamo, and board members Robert Sutton and Sam Legg joined several hundred other citizens in packing the hearing room…

The hearing was informational, to give legislators material to use in future considerations, rather than to schedule the bill for action. As such, it gave supporters a chance to formally present the case, get testimony in the written record, and show the depth and breadth of people’s interest in the bill.

The pace of this legislative process is frustratingly slow, but, for many of us, the hearing was a heartening experience. There, we heard people testify in a formal legislative setting to our most deeply held beliefs. One activist-participant said, “All my life I’ve been on the side that opposes government decisions. It was a weird experience to see all those peace movement people in the same room with legislators. I’ve never seen anything like that before, nor ever imagined it. It gave me a different vision of what might be possible.”

The Peace Tax Fund Bill has come a long way since its introduction in 1972, with many technical refinements, and it has a long way to go in gathering widespread support. On May 21 we witnessed one small step in validation, acknowledgment of our beliefs, and moving the dream closer to reality. Perhaps one day we will look back, as do those who watched the process of legalizing conscientious objection, and be glad we were involved in making it legal to follow our beliefs with our money-as well as with our bodies.

“This is not a political issue, but a moral issue of conscience,” responded Bentley…

Jacobs, in response, thanked the Rabbi and others of religious conscience who had testified. “I am a sponsor of this bill,” he said, “but I am not a pacifist.” He called to mind one of his favorite movies, Friendly Persuasion, and the lines spoken toward the end of the film: “It’s good to know that somebody is holding out for a better way of settling things!”

Terrill Hyde, tax legislative counsel for the Department of the Treasury, presented the Bush Administration position opposing the PTF. She mentioned “problems of complexity, confusion, and increased administrative burden,” sure to arise if the bill were passed. There would be no deterrent either, she said, to restrain taxpayers from inappropriately claiming CO status. If taxpayers were allowed to designate the uses for which their tax dollars were spent, “our entire budgetary process would be undermined.” There would likely be loss of revenue to needed federal programs.

Others, however, presented differing views. Several speakers argued that there would likely be substantial increases in revenue as a direct result of the bill. Many who currently refuse to pay a portion or all of their taxes would gladly pay. Also, large costs resulting from IRS efforts to collect from tax resisters would be avoided. Answering the criticism of how the act might increase paperwork and administrative costs, several people testified to the simple nature of the bill and of the tax filing process.

As to IRS claims that the bill raises possible legal questions, a panel of two law specialists responded. Mark Tushnet, professor of law at Georgetown University, said, “A nation that wants to protect the religious freedom of its citizens can reasonably be expected to enact legislation to enable the freedom to be expressed.” It seems perfectly appropriate, he concluded, that such legislation be enacted. “It is needed in addition to the Religious Freedom Act.”

Philadelphia, Pa., attorney and war tax specialist Peter Goldberger agreed. “Legislation of this kind has a noble history in our country,” and he quoted from a 1790 letter from then-President George Washington to Philadelphia Quakers. The nation’s laws, Washington wrote, must always be “extensively accommodated” in cases of individual conscience.

Alan Eccleston, a Quaker and an organizational development consultant from Hadley, Massachusetts, told about how, in his own tax witness, he has endured penalties, punishments, and the threat of losing his home. The IRS has a lien on his house right now. “Conscience must be taken into account. Spiritual values are real. They are not to be treated as incidental or expendable to fit the needs of the state. This is what the First Amendment is all about.”

Ruth Flower, legislative secretary of Friends Committee on National Legislation, emphasized that the Peace Tax Fund Act would not offer an escape to those who do not wish to pay their taxes, because they would have to pay the same amount either way. It would, however, provide a legal way out of violating one’s religious beliefs in order to comply with the laws of the land.

Her point was born out by Patricia Washburn, who gave perhaps the most moving testimony of the hearing. She talked about the challenge presented to each of us, and to her personally, in Micah 6:8: “…what does the Lord require of you but to act justly, to love constantly, and to walk humbly with your God?” Walking humbly requires us to acknowledge the seeds of violence in our own hearts, rather than projecting them onto someone else. “Loving constantly” can be a discouraging and difficult task, especially in today’s climate of distrust and alienation.

“I am not opposed to paying taxes, but I find no alternative form of tax payment… Thus, I see no current alternative to withholding the military portion of my taxes… I pray that my witness is done in love and that it will help to build a bridge across the chasm of violence and fear.”

After the hearing and following the press conference, [Marian] Franz [executive director of the National Campaign for a Peace Tax Fund] gave a brief workshop on lobbying for the bill. She pointed out that the testimony would now be entered in written record and could be referred to in the future. She added, “the fact that we got a hearing is absolutely amazing.” Many other pieces of legislation have not yet been so lucky, and the demand is great. “If all members of the committee had been present, they all would have been deeply moved, and we would be a lot further down the road.”

Franz encouraged people, when lobbying, to talk in terms of conscience, as defined by Pope John ⅩⅩⅢ, who said, “Deep inside, each one of us finds a law that we did not put there. It tells us to do this and shun that.” That is what puts the issue of paying taxes for war in the arena of religious decisions and touches on every individual’s right to follow their faith — whether they are housewives, bureaucrats, lawyers, teachers, or politicians.

That is why it is important to keep trying to open doors and ears and minds. Marian Franz has a suggestion for how to approach people: “Talk to aides and legislators as though you’re sharing something personally. You will often find that when you are talking about conscience, people are moved deeply.”

The February issue also plugged “Good Use: Songs of Peace, Tax & Conscience” — “a tape of War Tax Resister Songs, featuring Charlie King, Luci Murphy, Geof Morgan, Lifeline, and others. It was produced by Don Walsh, who donates the royalties.”

The lead editorial (by Vinton Deming) in the March issue concerned the ongoing Randy Kehler/Betsy Corner case:

Finding Affinity

Randy Kehler and his wife, Betsy Corner, have been tax resisters since 1977. They have given the tax money instead to a variety of groups doing constructive community work. Since 1989 the IRS has been trying to sell their house in Colrain, Mass., in an effort to collect $25,896 in back taxes — but it hasn’t been easy.

First of all, there’s been a growing tax resistance movement there in Franklin County. Bob Bady and Pat Morse, for instance, had their house seized and auctioned in 1989. (They still live in the house, however, and the buyer hasn’t taken possession.) Shelburn Falls dentist Tom Wilson had his dental license revoked when he refused to cooperate with IRS. (He continues his practice, however; even the local sheriff remains one of his regular patients).

So when the word got out that IRS planned to auction Betsy and Randy’s house, supporters in large numbers turned up on the announced day to oppose the sale. There were lots of signed bids (such as an offer to clean the teeth of an IRS agent, others pledging to do community work or to be peace activists for life) — but no cash buyers came forward. Not a one.

So, in November 1991, IRS upped the ante. Betsy, Randy, and daughter Lillian, 12, were given an eviction notice. When Randy decided to stay, he was held in contempt and tossed in the county jail for 6 months.

This didn’t go unnoticed by friends and neighbors, however. A sign-up sheet got circulated, and volunteers committed themselves to stay in the house around the clock. There’s been a continuous presence there since December 3. Groups from as far away as Washington, D.C., have signed up to come and help out. In early January, members of Mount Toby (Mass.) Meeting formed such an affinity group for a week.

Meanwhile, Randy stays in jail and makes the most of his time there. He has made friends with many of the prisoners, has organized a chess tournament, and does what he can to interpret his tax witness. Allan Eccleston, member of Mount Toby Meeting, has been approved as the meeting’s official minister and visits Randy twice a week.

So what’s next? IRS has scheduled another auction, this time out of the area in Springfield, Mass. — in the hope, it seems, of attracting a buyer for the house, someone who doesn’t know about this whole chain of events. Randy will not be there to talk about it, but lots of his friends will. Even if the house is sold, the issue will be far from over. The house is part of a land trust (Randy and Betsy own the house but not the land on which it stands) — and there’s the likelihood of a continuing nonviolent presence in the house to welcome any potential new buyer.

How might Friends respond? I asked this question in late January of Francis Crowe, long-time head of the American Friends Service Committee office in western Massachusetts and a supporter of Randy and Betsy. She suggests:

• Form an affinity group to help sustain the presence in the house. (To be scheduled, contact Traprock Peace Center…
• Funds are also needed to support the action (checks made out to “War Tax Refusers Support Committee”…).
• Letters to the editor on the subject of taxes and militarism are always helpful.
• More sponsors are needed in Congress for the Peace Tax Fund bill.…

At a rally last fall in support of Betsy and Randy, Juanita Nelson — who, with husband Wally, has been a tax refuser for decades and is known to many Friends — offered these words by Goethe: “Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has Genius, Power, and Magic in it.” Good advice as another tax season is upon us, when many of us seek to find our way on this difficult question of taxes for war.

In a later issue, David Zarembka reported in a letter-to-the-editor about how the occupation / blockade of the Kehler/Corner home was proceeding:

On Feb. 12, federal marshalls arrested seven members of the Flowing River Affinity Group who were occupying the Kehler/Corner home and removed the furniture into storage. At 2 p.m. that same day, the IRS sold the house to the highest bidder in an auction for $5,400. The seven affinity group members were released from jail later in the afternoon. So was Randy, who had served two months of his sentence.

Do not think, however, that Betsy and Randy have lost their home in an exotic cause! As soon as the federal marshalls left the house, an affinity group reoccupied it, and other groups, including one from Washington, D.C., of which I am a member, have continued to occupy the house on a 24-hour basis. Affinity groups, which occupy the home for a week each, have been organizing since late 1989, but new ones are still being formed…

The “buyers,” a young couple with a two-month-old son, have visited the house several times but have not as yet forced the issue. They are consulting with their lawyers. Betsy and Randy have become members of the Colrain Neighbors Affinity Group, which will occupy the home for the week beginning April 16. They and their twelve-year-old daughter, Lillian, will move back into their home when they can comfortably live there once again.

I would hope that this action would lead Friends to consider how their cooperation with the federal tax collection process — even those who are symbolic tax resisters or those who force the IRS to take their taxes from them — allows the present military system to thrive.

A report in that issue on the Canadian Yearly Meeting that had taken place the previous Fall noted that:

Canadian Yearly Meeting, in its role of employer, was asked to refuse to remit that portion of its employees’ taxes that will be used to support the military. Concern was expressed by the yearly meeting’s trustees, who would bear the legal results of such actions. Although the yearly meeting came close to supporting a minute for this action, it agreed to seek clearness with the trustees and monthly meetings and return to this issue next year.

The May issue was largely devoted to war tax resistance. It began with an editorial from Vinton Deming concerning his war tax resistance and the response of his employer, the Journal. Excerpt:

From the outset, I knew it wasn’t a very practical thing to do. The government was too powerful, and all the tax laws were against me. I’d just end up paying much more in the end, so why not choose a better way to work for peace? A good letter to my congressman, for instance, or a tax vigil at the federal building on Apri1 15.

But this was in the late 1970s. Our war in Vietnam was just over, but the Cold War continued. As the Reagan years unfolded, with still larger military expenditures and big cuts in domestic programs, I became even more clear: I must resist as fully as possible the payment of taxes for war.

The Journal board was always supportive of my witness. It refused twice to honor IRS levies on my wages. In doing so, Friends openly accepted the possibility of being taken to court one day and fined severely. The board wrote to IRS: “Our position of noncompliance to the requests of the Internal Revenue Service is not an easy one. We do not question the laws of the land lightly, but do so under the weight of a genuine religious and moral concern.”

Well, as they say, “What goes ’round comes ’round.” This February, Friends Journal was told by the U.S. Justice Department to pay up or we’d be taken to court.…

I am grateful for the steadfastness of the Journal’s board of managers. Since the board first addressed the tax issue in 1979, it has been faithful to the Quaker peace testimony. The road has been an uncertain and confusing one at many points, but Friends have shown courage in continuing.

In my own personal war tax journey, these words by John Stoner have served to guide: “We are war tax resisters because we have discovered some doubt as to what belongs to Caesar and what belongs to God, and have decided to give the benefit of the doubt to God.”

Sam Legg, clerk of the Friends Journal Board of Managers, gave his take on the Deming situation and on why the Journal had decided to throw in the towel and pay the IRS’s demands. Excerpts:

[F]rom 1979 to 1983… Vinton refused to pay any federal taxes. Each tax year he sent a blank 1040 along with a letter to the president explaining his opposition to war and his unwillingness as a Friend to pay for it. Since there was no Peace Tax Fund, Vinton reasoned, he would instead contribute the money to worthwhile projects and see that it was used for peaceful purposes. In 1987, the IRS served a levy on Friends Journal for $22,714.16, Vinton’s taxes for the period, plus interest and penalties. The IRS asked Friends Journal to withhold part of Vinton’s salary each month, but the Journal Board refused, writing that “We… are in support of Vinton Deming’s conscientious witness.”

In early February of this year, Friends Journal received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice reminding us of the levy on Vinton’s salary and asking us to try to “resolve this matter short of litigation.” That is, to pay the original assessed amount plus interest and a possible 50 percent penalty on the total. We were given until Feb. 28 to respond.

If we were to continue refusing to honor the levy, an immediate court action would follow. The 1990 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Smith vs. Oregon, as Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and the American Friends Service Committee have learned, teaches us that there is no way we could win such a case in court, nor could our assets be protected from seizure. More troubling, this seizure could make others who are not involved in our decision, undergo unwelcome investigation. Finally, a court case offers IRS the opportunity to set a legal precedent requiring the payment of the 50 percent penalty (which a sympathetic judge excused in the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting case last year). We fear that the inevitable negative decision could establish that precedent and thereby restrict other individuals’ or groups’ religious freedom. And so, most reluctantly, the Friends Journal Board has agreed to negotiate with IRS and to pay the least amount IRS will accept ($31,300) as settlement of this claim.

Our painful recognition of failure is heavy upon us. We have to accept that our witness in its present form can no longer serve a useful purpose. We can hope Vinton’s action and our support will have brought the issue of tax refusal to the attention of others, thereby becoming a part of the tradition of citizen pressure that in the long run eliminates or diminishes social evils such as slavery and war.

Our protest is on record. What we will do now is support the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1991… which aims to reestablish the first amendment religious rights lost in the Smith vs. Oregon decision. We also urge support for the U.S. Peace Tax Fund Bill… which makes the same witness, but provides money to finance peace-enhancing projects. (Needless to say, if there had been a Peace Tax Fund in 1979, Vinton’s taxes would have been paid gladly, and there would have been no need for an IRS levy.) We ask all those who share our concerns to join in these legal approaches to the continuing effort to convince ourselves and others of the futility of armed conflict and the necessity of finding other means to resolve human disputes.

The immediate financial challenge to the Journal is a very real one. In a year in which we already face a substantial budget deficit, the payment of such a large lump sum adds an enormous burden. Vinton has engaged to repay the Journal through payroll deductions over time. We have been heartened as well, as word of our tax witness spreads, to receive gifts of support from our readers. One contributor writes: “I hope everyone at the Friends Journal can be made aware of Friends’ approval of [your] Board action. To help this happen, I encourage the Journal to go as public with the story as is consistent with respect for Vint’s privacy and the Journal’s limited resources. I am convinced that other Friends will wish to help financially when so informed.” For such words, and unexpected gifts, we are most grateful.

Readers wrote in with their feedback about the Journal’s decision, and some of their letters were printed in the July issue:

• Duane Magill wrote to “applaud” and “sympathize” with the Journal’s stand. “As a war tax resister myself for the past quarter of a century, I have had some brushes with the IRS myself and know what it is like. I also appreciate your giving publicity to the subject. I know that not many Quakers take this position, and giving the matter this extensive coverage just might encourage more to take this stand.”
• Yvonne Boeger wrote in on behalf of the Live Oak (Texas) Meeting to say that the meeting had recently “discussed the importance of war tax resistance as a means of witnessing to Friends’ long-standing opposition to all forms of war and violence” and that the Meeting was supportive of the Journal’s (and Deming’s) action. “We send the enclosed check as a token of our support and solidarity in Friends’ resistance to war. Thank you for the example you have set for us all.”
• Lillian and George Willoughby wrote to express gratitude for the Journal’s “courage in standing in support of Vint Deming.” They wrote: “Most important is the example of a Quaker religious employer providing support to staff who endeavor to live according to Friends’ teachings. The Journal has run considerable risk and incurred heavy expenses. We enclose our check as a demonstration of our support. We think that many other Friends will want to help carry the financial burden of this witness.”
• An editorial note in the letters column expressed “thanks to all those who have sent checks!” and a later editorial note (in the December issue) said that they had received “$8,000 from individuals and meetings, $7,000 from a Sufferings Fund of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting,” and almost $4,000 from Deming himself.

Mennonite war tax resister (and, according to his author bio, “itinerant prophet and spiritual retreat leader”) John K. Stoner wrote about the call he got from an IRS employee. Excerpts:

We talked for about ten minutes, as I explained why Janet and I had said “no” to paying the full amount of our income tax. The man could not understand why anyone would invite the collection pressures of the IRS upon themselves by withholding some taxes. But by the time the conversation was over, he was a little closer to understanding that this was, for us, a matter of faith and a question of the practice of our religion.

It was a Mark 13:9 kind of experience of being called before the authorities, “before governors and kings,” because of Jesus, as a testimony to them. By the sound of Mark 13, Jesus expected this kind of thing to happen regularly to his followers. Mark 13 is a good text to remember when everybody around you is quoting Romans 13.

The Christian Peacemaker Teams organization is promoting symbolic war tax refusal as a way to make a clear witness in the matter of war taxes. Taxes for Life is a plan to have taxpayers redirect to education an amount equivalent to 1 penny for every billion dollars in the military budget. For tax year 1991 this is $3.03, which can be mailed to Christian Peacemaker Teams… Listen to your conscience when you pay your taxes. Write a letter of witness to the IRS, with copies to Congress and your local newspaper. Redirect some taxes to education through CPT.

If the IRS calls, tell them that it makes you a little bit nervous to break their law and that you do not enjoy being harassed by the collectors of blood money. Go on to say that you are far more apprehensive, however, about breaking God’s law. Tell them that you hear God’s warning rising up from the bulldozed mass graves of Iraqi conscripts, fathers and husbands, and the nightmares of their children. Explain that you are really afraid to harden you heart to the cry of the victims and that you have decided you will not take their blood upon your hands.

When Randy Kehler was thrown in prison on contempt of court charges for refusing to vacate the home that had been seized by the IRS, he prepared a statement that he hoped to read. The court denied him permission to address it. The Journal printed the statement he’d hoped to have made, which is a good thing: it would be a shame if such an articulate statement was left to sit unread in a file folder somewhere.

My refusal to give up our home is not an act of contempt or defiance of your court order. I regard it as an act of conscience and also an act of citizenship. The two go hand in hand. The first obligation of responsible citizenship, I believe, is obedience to one’s conscience. Obedience to one’s government and to its laws is very important, but it must come second. Otherwise there is no check on immoral actions by governments, which are bound to occur in any society whenever power is abused.

I want to assure you, however, that I am not someone who treats the law lightly. Even when a particular law seems at first to have no clear purpose or justification, I try to give it — that is, give those who created and approved it — the benefit of the doubt. In an ideal sense, I see law as the codification of those rules and procedures by which the members or citizens of a community, be it local or global, have agreed to live. A decent respect for one’s community requires a decent respect for its laws. At their best, such laws express the conscience of the community, causing conscience and law to coincide.

The international treaties and agreements that my wife, Betsy, and I cited in the legal documents recently submitted to, and rejected by, this court are wonderful examples of the coincidence of law and conscience. These agreements, each one signed by our government, include the United Nations Charter, which outlaws war and the use of military force as methods of resolving conflicts among nations; the Hague Regulations and Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the use or threatened use of weapons that indiscriminately kill civilians and poison the environment; and the Nuremberg Principles, which forbid individual citizens from participating in or collaborating with clearly defined “crimes against humanity,” “war crimes,” and “crimes against peace,” even when refusal to participate or collaborate means disobeying the laws of one’s government.

These international accords — which, as you know, our Constitution requires us to regard as “the Supreme Law of the Land” — are at least as much affirmation of conscience, rooted in universal moral standards, as they are statements of law. Betsy and I regret that you chose to deny our request for a trial, which would have allowed us to argue the relevance of these international laws before a jury of our peers.

Even in the absence of such laws, however, I believe that citizens would still have an affirmative obligation to follow their conscience and refuse to engage in or support immoral acts by governments. It is not true, as is commonly thought, that if large numbers of people put conscience ahead of the law and decided for themselves which acts of government were immoral, civilized society would break down into violence and chaos — that is, greater violence and chaos than there is now. In fact, the opposite would likely occur. There would likely be greater compliance with those laws that are fundamentally just and reasonable — in other words, most laws — and there would be greater public pressure to abolish or reform those laws (and policies) that are unjust or unreasonable.

There would be exceptions for the worse, of course. In the name of conscience, certain individuals would, no doubt, do some terrible things and cause much injury and death, which happens now. On balance, however, the historical record is clear: from the Spanish Inquisition and the African slave trade, to Stalin’s purges, Hitler’s Holocaust, the genocide of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and our own devastation of Vietnam and Iraq, far more killing and suffering, has resulted from people following “legal” orders and obeying the law than from people refusing to do so in obedience to conscience.

My own refusal to kill (which led me to spend nearly two years in federal prison rather than cooperate with the Vietnam draft), Betsy’s and my refusal to pay federal taxes used for killing (which caused the IRS to seize our home), and now our refusal to turn over our home in lieu of taxes, are all acts of conscience. It has not been easy for us to deliberately violate the law in these instances, and in so doing incur the anxiety and disapproval of some of our friends and family, as well as the scorn and censure of many members of the community. We are painfully aware that even though we do pay our town and state taxes, and even though we have given away to the poor and to the victims of our war-making in other countries every cent that we have withheld from the federal government, nevertheless we are still regarded by some as irresponsible and not contributing our fair share.

These are times, however, when all of us are confronted with difficult choices. Betsy and I, and many others like us, feel we must choose between knowingly and willingly paying for war and killing, and openly and nonviolently breaking the law with respect to federal taxes. Our consciences compel us to choose the latter.

For me, the issue is larger than simply the taking of another human life, or even the instance of a particular war in which many lives are lost. I have increasingly come to see the larger issue as war itself. Whereas there has always been a moral imperative to end war and refrain from killing, today the imperative is much greater. Today the logic of peace, the logic of nonviolence, is also the logic of survival.

It is impossible to dis-invent today’s nuclear, chemical, biological, and so-called conventional weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, we have no alternative but to effectively abolish war. This is the one essential adaptation the human species must make — and, I firmly believe, can make — if life as we know it is to continue.

War today is the scourge of the planet. It is tragic enough that war is daily claiming the lives of people, maiming more, leaving orphans and widows, and destroying homes, schools, and hospitals — to say nothing of the irreplaceable treasures of human civilization destroyed in Baghdad last year and in Dubrovnik over the past several months. What makes war today even more tragic, more horrible, are the incalculable economic, social, and environmental costs that go along with it. Instead of using our human and material resources to produce food, medicine, housing, schools, and other desperately needed commodities, the world’s nations, led by our own, are annually spending trillions of dollars to purchase more and more weapons of even greater destructive capability. The hundreds of millions of children, women, and men whose lives are ravaged by poverty, hunger, and homelessness — around the world and here in the States — are as much victims of our addiction to war and militarism as are those who are hit directly by the bullets and bombs.

While the awful gap between the rich minority and the poor majority of the world’s people grows wider and wider, war’s assault on the earth — the earth that sustains us all — becomes more savage and less reversible with each new armed conflict. The severe and longterm ecological damage to the Persian Gulf region that resulted from only a few weeks of war last year is just the tip of the iceberg. The cumulative impact of the many smaller, less publicized wars elsewhere around the globe is no less severe and, ultimately, no less threatening to the well-being of people everywhere, including the United States. Furthermore, here at home, where ecological damage to our own environment is proceeding at a frightening pace, the single largest polluter by far, producing more toxic and radioactive waste than any other single entity, is the U.S. military.

I am not at all suggesting that our country bears sole responsibility for the global state of affairs. But we bear a good deal of it, and therefore any steps we take to move away from war will have great influence upon other countries around the world. Even before the collapse of the Soviet Union, we had the most powerful armed forces in the world, the most sophisticated weaponry, and by far the largest number of military bases outside our own borders. Since World War Ⅱ, we have used our military might to bomb, invade, or otherwise intervene in more countries around the world than any other nation. We were the first to develop the atomic bomb, and we are the only nation ever to use it. For years we have led the Soviets in atomic test explosions, and we ani continuing these tests even though Soviet testing has stopped. In addition, we have long been the world’s largest arms merchant, today supplying 40 percent of the entire overseas arms market.

We have been told that all of this is necessary for our security, but the opposite is true. This military colossus we have created has greatly undermined our security — by creating more enemies than it destroys, by wasting our precious resources and poisoning our environment, by degrading our democracy with “national security” secrecy, covert actions, and official lying, and by undercutting our highest Judeo-Christian values with the insidious doctrine of “might makes right.”

Betsy’s and my actions that have brought us to court are testament to our belief that there is another way for us to live in the world, and another way for us to resolve our conflicts with our fellow human beings. It is a way that is rooted in the best of our values: the values of generosity and justice, of human dignity and equality, of compassion and mutual respect. The seeds of this alternative way — the way of nonviolence that Dr. Martin Luther King tried to teach us — already exist within our society, and within each person. We have only to honor and nurture those seeds, individually and collectively. This is a prescription based not on wishful idealism, but on practical necessity. It is our only real hope for survival.

The transformation required cannot be accomplished without our accepting some measure of personal responsibility for the mess we are in. It would be futile to expect our government, or any other, to initiate it. In any event, we cannot afford to wait. The transformation must begin with us. Because we profess to be a self-governing people, it is all the more our responsibility.

We can exercise this responsibility by means of the choices each of us is called upon to make. For example, we can choose to speak out publicly against governmental practices and priorities that we know to be wrong. Many of us can also choose not to hand over to the federal government some part of our tax money — instead redistribute it to those in need, until such time as those in need become our government’s first priority. And each of us can choose to continue leading lives based on materialism, consumerism, and environmental exploitation, or we can find ways of living based on simplicity, sharing, and respect for the Earth. The choices we make as individuals will determine the choices we make as a nation.

This is, no doubt, a dangerous and ominous time to be alive in the world. Yet it is also a very exciting time to be alive. People all over the world, despite the opposition of their governments, are taking initiative to bring about momentous and long overdue changes. These winds of change are sweeping the planet, and they are not likely to stop at our borders.

If the people of Prague and Moscow can overthrow Soviet communism and bring about democracy and human rights; if the people of Soweto and Johannesburg can abolish South African apartheid and establish an egalitarian, multi-racial society; then, I feel sure, it is equally possible for us to dismantle U.S. militarism and replace it with attitudes and institutions of nonviolence.

It is my great hope, my silent prayer, that Betsy’s and my struggle to see that the fruits of our labor are used for nurturing and healing, rather than for killing and war, will somehow contribute to that process.

Following this, Christopher L. King had a piece promoting the Peace Tax Fund. He described it as the brainchild of David Bassett, who some twenty years before had come up with the idea of allowing taxpayers to perform “alternative service” money the way conscientiously objecting draftees could with their labor. King wrote that he was surprised to find little awareness of the bill in Quaker circles and described some of the work that he and his comrades were doing for the bill.

Those of us who meet each month and a quiet group of supporters in the surrounding communities believe in our consciences that war and militarism are wrong. We don’t believe they should be the major tools of our foreign policy. We sympathize with citizens like Randy Kehler and Betsy Corner of Colrain, Massachusetts, who have chosen to pay no taxes because they are pacifists.

We empathize with those brave souls who choose alternative lifestyles so they can keep their income below taxable levels. It often means their children must learn to sacrifice at an early age. It means stepping out of the mainstream culture.

Most of us don’t want to change our lifestyles radically or go to jail for our beliefs. Some might argue that if we are true to our faith, we have no other choice. On the other hand, there is a need to resist the fundamental tyranny that requires that we must become rebels if we wish to stand firmly for peace.

King’s article was pretty vague on the mechanics of what the Peace Tax Fund bill would actually accomplish, and it was written as if there were no reason why a conscientious objector to paying to war might not find it a satisfactory solution.

The July issue included a brief review of the video Paying for Peace: War Tax Resistance in the United States, which was produced by Carol Coney. Excerpt:

Among those interviewed are Brian Willson, a war tax resister and Vietnam veteran who in 1987 was run over by a train while blocking munitions shipments at the Concord naval weapons plant in California. Also interviewed is Maurice McCrackin, a minister who was sentenced to jail for war tax resistance in the early 1950s; Ernest and Marion Bromley, who have lived under the taxable income level to avoid paying taxes for military purposes; and Juanita Nelson, an early civil rights organizer who was the first woman to spend a night in jail for war tax resistance.

The August issue included an op-ed from Allan Kohrman suggesting Quakers ought to be more patriotic, perhaps singing “God Bless America” during their Sunday meetings, and in particular should rethink their permissive attitude toward civil disobedience and war tax resistance. “Many Friends seem to define civil disobedience as breaking any law they feel is morally wrong. Some will not pay war taxes, testifying that God has called them to resist. I would argue that paying taxes is a basic responsibility of citizenship, a function of my almost mystical relationship to my country. God calls me to pay my taxes much as God calls others to resist them.” That’s what “an almost mystical relationship to my country” will get you, I guess.

Another note in that issue concerned two Quakers in Germany — Christa & Klausmart Voigt — who had been prosecuted for war tax resistance. “About 40 Friends from all over Germany attended the hearing, which was overseen by five judges.” Klausmart had “placed his money in an account for a peace tax initiative,” and at press time they were still awaiting the court’s decision.

There was another note about the Tax Resisters’ Penalty Fund in the October issue, which described it this way: “When a request for assistance comes in, the committee that oversees the fund takes it under consideration, then notifies people who have agreed to participate of the amount each would need to contribute to cover the tax resister’s penalty and interest debt. Contributions are not used to cover the tax liability itself. The fund is administered in cooperation with the North Manchester (Ind.) Fellowship of Reconciliation.”

Ernest Bromley was one of the pioneers of the modern American war tax resistance movement. The following article, from the Lumberton, North Carolina Robesonian, is dated 9 October 1942, less than a year after the Pearl Harbor attack, and at a time when war tax resistance in the United States was so rare as to be almost unheard of:

Bath Pastor Refuses To Pay Tax To Aid Nation’s War Effort

Washington, N.C., Oct. 9. — A statement as to his stand in opposition to the payment of taxes which went to the support of the nation’s war effort was read in Federal district court here Tuesday by the Rev. Ernest Raymond Bromley, Methodist minister of Bath.

The Rev. Bromley was convicted on two counts of refusal to pay the automobile use tax levied by the federal government. Judge I.M. Meekins of Elizabeth City ordered him to pay a fine of $25 or serve 30 days in jail in each case.

The minister chose to serve the jail sentence rather than pay the fines of $50 when Judge Meekins informed him that the $50 would for the most part be used for the nation’s war effort.

In his statement Bromley said his course was “not one of tax evasion but is one of war tax opposition.”

At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).

Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about how the Quaker practice of war tax resistance began to reemerge after the Great Forgetting period.

The Thaw (1943–1959)

In the Great Forgetting period, Quakers endeavored to overlook that war tax resistance had been an important part of putting the Quaker peace testimony into practice.

But during World War Ⅱ and the opening decade of the Cold War, a largely Christian pacifist war tax resistance movement began to coalesce, which included Quakers, but the most prominent members of which belonged to other denominations. This movement set the stage for the coming renaissance of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends.

A few of the earliest tax resisters of this period were Quakers. I’ve already mentioned Mary Stone McDowell, who carried on her resistance from the World War Ⅰ period (the only such example I’m aware of). There was also Arthur Evans, who was resisting perhaps as early as 1943, making him one of the earliest adopters of war tax resistance in this Thaw period.

But institutionally, the Society of Friends still had little interest in the subject. In 1955 the American Friends Service Committee, a major voice of the practical side of the Quaker peace testimony, put out an influential booklet: Speak Truth to Power: A Quaker Search for an Alternative to Violence. It mentions war tax resistance only once, and in an 18^th century historical overview context, not as an example of a contemporary method of speaking truth to power in search of alternatives to violence. This is in spite of the fact that the committee that produced the booklet included among its members the war tax resisters A.J. Muste and Milton Mayer.

Instead, the leadership in advocating for war tax resistance and in organizing the fledgling modern war tax resistance movement largely came from outside the Society of Friends. Some of the more prominent war tax resistance promoters in this important period were Dorothy Day (Catholic) & Ammon Hennacy (often Catholic), A.J. Muste (sometimes-Quaker, but bounced around a lot), Maurice McCrackin (Presbyterian), Ernest Bromley (Methodist, later a Quaker), Ralph DiGia (not religious as far as I could tell), and Milton Mayer (Jewish, later a Quaker).

The work of this emerging group of resisters helped to encourage the remaining Quaker war tax resisters and to remind Quakers that war tax resistance wasn’t only something of the legendary past but was an available testimony to them in the present. The thaw in the Society of Friends had begun.

One of the first examples of this thaw was a particularly dramatic one. When four Quaker conscientious objectors in the United States were put on trial for evading the Korean War draft, the judge told them: “If you are not willing to defend this country, you should leave.” They took that advice seriously, and began to look for an alternative. They chose Costa Rica, a country that had abolished its standing army in 1948. “We wanted to be free of paying taxes in a war economy,” recalls Marvin Rockwell, one of the emigrants. Seven Quaker families left the U.S. to found the community of Monteverde, Costa Rica, in 1959. Rockwell later told a Friends Journal reporter: “I do not feel bad at all paying taxes in Costa Rica. The largest item in the tax budget is for education.”

From the front page of The Sandusky [Ohio] Register Star-News on this date in 1949:

8 Ohioans Refuse To Pay Tax For “Financing War”

Columbus, March 14 (UP) — Eight Ohioans said today they will refuse to pay all or part of their 1948 income tax because the money will be used to “finance war preparations.”

The eight were among 41 persons in the nation who announced they will not pay all or part of their income taxes. All are members of Peacemakers, a pacifist group with headquarters in New York city.

In a prepared statement, the eight Ohioans renounced war and violence and said they were “acting for peace by refusing to manufacture weapons of war, refusing to serve in the armed forces, and refusing to finance war preparations.”

The Rev. Ernest Bromley, Wilmington, O. was identified as chairman of the tax refusal committee of peacemakers. His wife, Marion, also was listed among those who will refuse to pay income taxes.

Other Ohioans listed include Horace Champney, Caroline Urie, and Ralph Templin, all of Yellow Springs; Max Sandin, Cleveland; Wallace Nelson, Cincinnati, and Aleck D. Dodd, Toledo.

Mrs. Urie, a 75-year-old widow, attempted last year to deduct 34.6 percent of her estimated tax for that year. Congress, however, reduced taxes in her income bracket and her income fell enough below her estimate that at the end of the year the government owed her money instead.

There had been a flurry of articles the previous year about Urie’s tax resistance. I’ve posted some of these before.

A caption to a wire service photo of Urie published in many papers around that time reads: “Mrs. Caroline Foulke Urie, 74-year-old Yellow Springs, Ohio, widow [“of a navy World War Ⅰ officer,” some versions add], has paid $294.30 of her 1947 income tax, but has refused to pay the remaining 34.6 percent, because it would be allocated for military purposes. Crippled by arthritis for 14 years, Mrs. Urie is bedridden most of the time.”

And here’s a United Press dispatch from March 1948 that adds some more details to the story:

Quaker Refuses to Pay Tax for War Expenditures

Yellow Springs, O., (UP) — The elderly widow of a career Navy officer refused to pay 34.6 per cent of her income tax today because “I’ll never pay any more money for war.”

Mrs. Caroline Fouke Urie, 74-year-old Quaker, wrote President Truman and the Internal Revenue Department that she would pay only 65.4 per cent of her income tax.

“If they want to send me to jail because I won’t pay, that’s all right with me,” she said. “I’m perfectly willing to go to jail. I’ll never pay any more money for war.”

She would donate the other 34.6 per cent, she said, to non-profit agencies “engaged in practical efforts toward removing some of the causes of war.”

Mrs. Urie said her husband, a Navy medical officer, retired before World War Ⅰ because of injuries suffered in a target practice blast on a battle ship.

In her letter to Mr. Truman, Mrs. Urie explained that in previous years “I have affixed to my income tax return, and to the check in payment of the tax, a typed or printed protest stating that the tax is paid under duress because most of it goes to military expenditures.

“Now that the atomic bomb has reduced to a final criminal absurdity the whole war system… I have come to the conclusion that — as a Christian, a Quaker, a religious and conscientious objector to the whole institution of organized war — I must henceforth refuse to contribute to it in any way I can avoid.”

She said the atomic bomb has involved the United States in the “shame and guilt” of having been the first to exploit its criminal possibilities.

“It’s time for people to start thinking,” the modest and retiring widow said.

Once expelled from Italy by the Mussolini government because of anti-fascist statements, Mrs. Urie was a social worker for the Society of Friends in England, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Germany, and Italy.

Her friends said that even though crippled by arthritis, Mrs. Urie keeps abreast of community and world activity by reading and maintaining a large volume of correspondence.

Some news of interest to war tax resisters in particular:

• C.J. Hinke has a book coming out: Free Radicals: War Resisters in Prison. Here’s an excerpt. You can also follow the PrisonWarResisters blog which contains a lot of good accounts of mid-twentieth-century conscientious objection in the United States. The entries touch on war tax resistance from time to time, mostly in passing, but include information about the tax resistance stands of Juanita & Wally Nelson, Ernest & Marion Bromley, Eroseanna Robinson, Karl Meyer, and Art Harvey.
• The Spanish anti-militarist group “Tortuga” has created a comic book to explain why and how to refuse to pay war taxes.
• A transcript of Peter Goldberger’s talk on the possible ramifications of the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision for U.S. war tax resisters is now available on the NWTRCC web site.
• The War Tax Talk blog has a new post from Ruth Benn announcing a new edition of a NWTRCC “practical series” pamphlet on Health Care and Income Security for War Tax Resisters.
• There’s a new issue of NWTRCC’s newsletter out, with content including:
  • The IRS still seems to be trigger-happy about “frivolous filing” warnings.
  • War tax resisters have been making the tactic known hither and yon, including at a Fellowship of Reconciliation regional conference, a Fourth-of-July parade, a “People’s Budget” gathering, and the U.S. Social Forum; also, the New England Gathering of War Tax Resisters and Supporters is coming up in October.
  • A profile of Sylvia Metzler.

I haven’t yet visited any archives that hold material from the Peacemakers, that group that coordinated the early modern American war tax resistance movement beginning in the late 1940s. But while I was following another thread, I found the following article which gave the most complete membership run-down of the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers that I have yet seen:

43 Pacifists Won’t Pay U.S. Tax in Arms Protest

Special in The [Philadelphia] Inquirer and New York Herald Tribune

New York, March 13 [1949]. — Forty-three pacifists throughout the United States declared today that they would refuse to pay all or a part of their Federal income taxes this year as a protest against the Nation’s military expenditures.

The group, including a number of Quakers, conscientious objectors, and several who have refused payment of taxes before, issued a statement through Peacemakers, [a] national pacifist group with headquarters here, in which they said:

“Believing that men are accountable for their actions, and that laws requiring immoral acts should not be obeyed, we have after serious consideration determined upon a course of civil disobedience with relation to the income tax laws of the United States.”

Headed by Pastor

Forty-one of the tax refusers acted under a tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, headed by Rev. Ernest Bromley, of Wilmington, O. Their statement was issued by Rev. A.J. Muste, secretary of the organization, and also secretary of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. Mr. Muste, former director of the Presbyterian Labor Temple, and one-time president of the defunct Brookwood Labor College at Katonah, N.Y., has long been known in the labor movement, and as a pacifist and campaigner against military conscription.

Two additional persons were listed as tax refusers in a statement issued on behalf of 11 Philadelphians by Walter C. Longstreth, Philadelphia lawyer. The other nine were all included in the Peacemakers list.

Some Withhold 36.4 Pct.

Mr. Muste, who said he personally would refuse to pay any income taxes this year, as he did last, declared that some of the signers would follow his course of action; while others will withhold the 36.4 percent estimated by the Bureau of the Budget as that portion of tax money expended for military purposes.

Others on the list issued by the Peacemakers were:

Ross Anderson, of Portland Ore.; B. Bargen, of Newton, Kas.; Marilyn Blaise, religious education director, New York City; Marion Bromley, of Wilmington, O.; Lindley Burton, of Bryn Mawr, Pa.; Horace Champney, of Yellow Springs, O.; Miriam Keeler Cornelius, labor economist, Washington D.C.; Aleck D. Dodd, clergyman, of Toledo, O.; Margaret E. Dungan, of Wallingford, Pa.; William Bacon Evans, of Morrestown, N.J.; Caleb Foote, of Arden, Del.; Hope Foote, of Arden, Del.; Marion C. Frenyear, clergyman, of Plainfield, Mass.; Robert C. Friend, religious education director, of Schenectady, N.Y.; Walter Gormly, of Mt. Vernon, Ia.; J. William Hawkins, of Winters, Calif.; Ammon Hennacy, of Phoenix, Ariz.; George M. Houser, of New York City; Sander Katz, of New York City; Raymond E. Kinney, of Los Angeles; Emily Longstreth, of Philadelphia; Walter Longstreth, of Philadelphia; Mary Bacon Mason, of Newton Center, Mass.; Milton Mayer, of Chicago; Mary McDowell, of Brooklyn, N.Y.; Wallace Nelson, of Cincinnati; James Peck, of New York City; Paula Beck, of New York City; Caroline Philips, of Wilmington, Del.; Lydia Philips, of Wilmington, Del.; Grace Rhoads, of Moorestown, N.J.; Francis B. Riggs, of Cambridge, Mass.; Valerie Riggs, of Cambridge, Mass.; Igal Roodenko, of Bronx, N.Y.; Max Sandin, of Cleveland; Laurence Scott, of Kansas City, Mo.; Ralph Templin, of Yellow Springs, O.; Louise Thomas, of Cherry Valley, N.Y.; Mrs. Caroline Urie, of Yellow Springs, O.; Beverly White, of Wichita, Kas..

Many of these names I’ve encountered before, but several were new to me.

There were fewer than 3,000 people living in Yellow Springs, Ohio at the time, and three of them were among the 43 public war tax resisters in the United States. I wonder what that was all about.

An Associated Press dispatch from this date in 1961, as headlined by The Kansas City Times:

Pacifist Fouls Up As a Tax Dodger

Washington, Aug. 30. — A 72-year-old pacifist sat down in a Treasury corridor today to begin a hunger strike which was quickly interrupted by [a] Secret Service agent.

Max Sandin of Cleveland, O., a sign painter, said he would stay in the hall until he starved to death.

Two agents took Sandin into custody and turned him over to a hospital for mental observation.

A conscientious objector in both wars, Sandin has refused to pay federal income taxes since 1943. The Internal Revenue service has attached his monthly social security check for $116 to meet back tax payments.

He was, according to a later article, “found sound of mind and discharged on his own responsibility.”

Monday the District of Columbia Commission on Mental Health dismissed a petition to commit Sandin to an insane institution. The commission said Tuesday the finding that Sandin was of sound mind came after examining Sandin and discussions with relatives, friends, and witnesses.

That was over a week and a half after the Secret Service grabbed him, though.

Another unsympathetic headline topped the United Press coverage in the Sandusky, Ohio Register a couple of days earlier:

Doesn’t Pay Taxes, But Asks Benefits

Cleveland (UPI) — Max Sandin, 72, was en route to Washington today to conduct a hunger strike at the U.S. Treasury Building until his social security payments are restored.

Sandin, a conscientious objector in two wars, has refused to pay federal income taxes since 1943 because most of the money goes to war purposes, he said.

He was notified Aug. 1 that his social security benefits for July 1961 had been surrendered to the Internal Revenue Service.

The government claims he owes several thousand dollars in income taxes.

“I am 72-years-old and unable to work,” Sandin said. “Without social security I will starve.”

He said he is going to starve in Washington and “the government can do as it pleases with me.”

He was in the news last September when he and three other pacifists protested against obstruction of Polaris-carrying submarines at New London, Conn.

He related that he had been sentenced to death as a conscientious objector in 1918 but this was later reduced by presidential action to a prison sentence and he served about five months.

“Now, years later, they take a second action which can kill me because I am a pacifist and have worked for a peaceful world without war,” Sandin said.

A Scripps dispatch added these details:

Max hitch-hiked from Cleveland to Washington. Yesterday he spent all day parading with fellow Peace Action colleagues before the White House, and arguing with Internal Revenue officials.

Late in the day, IRS spokesmen admitted there was a possible legal loophole through which Max might wriggle, should he choose to do so.

“The Social Security law says no one can attach the payments to individuals, but our law doesn’t except the beneficiaries,” explained Lawrence George, spokesman for the tax-collection service. “There’s a possible conflict in this case which could be taken to court.”

Max said he wouldn’t fight his battle in court.

“No lawyer in the world could defend me against not paying my income tax,” he said in broken English. “Besides, I have no money for that.”

The government had started seizing not only Sandin’s $116 monthly Social Security check, but also his $31 monthly Painters Union Pension, leaving him with essentially no income.

In 1918, Sandin was sentenced to death after being “found guilty of having refused to obey an order of his superior officer to clean up a pile of refuse in camp.” He was a conscientious objector, but because of the grounds on which he objected, he was found not qualify for that status officially, and so his refusal to serve was treated as simple insubordination. While at Camp Funston, Sandin and other objectors were subjected to brutal treatment, which became a minor scandal at the time. President Wilson commuted Sandin’s sentence to 15 years (though in fact he was released from the Fort Leavenworth disciplinary barracks on 24 June 1919).

The following comes from the 31 March 1949 Mansfield, Ohio News-Journal:

He Pays, But Indirectly

Fights Against Paying Taxes for War

Cleveland — (INS) – Max Sandin, 59, of Cleveland, refuses to pay federal income taxes because of his convictions against war.

Nevertheless, he pays them, if only indirectly.

Since 1943, long before a new cult of pacifists began refusing to pay taxes for “war preparations,” Sandin has not paid a single cent of income taxes of his own volition.

Every year, the pacifist sends the Bureau of Internal Revenue a tax form bearing his name and address and a note saying:

As a conscientious objector, I refuse to pay income taxes — not to help war directly.

Tax collectors continually send him notices, visit him at home and call him into the revenue office for conferences. Once they attached and took his pay for $145 on a painting job.

The collectors also filed a $2,800 tax lien against him, meaning that if he ever owns property, the government will collect its due. Meanwhile, interest and penalties add to the bill.

Tax officials in Cleveland, however, would not comment on Sandin’s case or that of any other Clevelander who may be one of about 150 persons throughout the nation belong[ing] to the “Peacemakers,” a pacifist organization.

During the First World War, Sandin was sentenced to be shot because he refused to bear arms. He said his objection was political, rather than religious. President Wilson, however, commuted the death sentence.

Here’s another piece on his tax resistance, from the Circleville, Ohio Herald, 11 April 1955:

Stubborn War Objector Still In Private War With Tax Collector

Cleveland (AP) — The little bald man said he wouldn’t pay his income tax this year, just as he has refused to pay it since 1943 when he decided Uncle Sam used tax money to pay for wars.

There was a fleck of white paint under Max Sandin’s ear as he sat in the newspaper office to make his annual declaration. It was literally an earmark of his trade, house-painting.

In his hand he carried a news release headed: “43 refuse to pay federal income tax,” and it was from the “Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers.”

Actually the number now is 42, because Mrs. Caroline F. Urie, a naval officer’s widow, died last week.

Sandin was a personal friend and neighbor in suburban Lyndhurst of Mrs. Urie, who made headlines by withholding 75 per cent of her income tax payment. She figured that percentage went for military expenditures, so she paid it to charities instead of to the government.

“I won’t pay even 25 per cent,” said Sandin, “because they would take 75 per cent of that and use it for war purposes.”

Sandin’s stand for peace has, of course, got him into his own small private war with the Internal Revenue collectors. Outnumbered, he has lost a few battles, but his foe is fighting on a long front and is unwilling to spend the time, patience, or money to achieve total victory that would net about $3,000 in tax money. Also, the opposing high command doesn’t want Sandin as a prisoner, and in the skirmishes the house-painter has certain tactical advantages.

When Sandin works steadily for the same contractor, the Internal Revenue officers latch onto his pay check before he gets it. When he gets his own painting jobs, the collectors have to wait outside his home, board the bus with him and give notice to the homeowner that Uncle Sam, not Sandin will collect for the paint job.

Peace from this private war with the tax collectors is just around the corner for Sandin, who is 65. He plans to retire next summer and write a book entitled “Political War Objector.”

In it he will tell how he has opposed war since World War Ⅰ, when he was sentenced to die for refusing to bear arms but was saved from a firing squad by President Woodrow Wilson’s last-minute reprieve. And he will tell how he was jailed in 1943 for refusal to register for the draft in World War Ⅱ.

“I oppose war politically, not religiously,” he explained. “Who am I to say that I’m the only person whose conscience objects to war?”

Sandin’s retirement income won’t be a matter of much concern to the Internal Revenue Department. It will come mostly from social security.

“I paid those taxes,” he said.

While I wasn’t paying attention, someone scanned in many back issues of Friends Bulletin, the journal of the Pacific Yearly Meeting and Pacific Coast Association of Friends. This has allowed me another window onto the state of American war tax resistance, Quaker war tax resistance in particular, in the last half of the 20^th century.

Here, for example, from the April, 1951 issue, is an article on an early Peacemakers tax refusal pledge that includes a complete list of signatories, including several I hadn’t heard of before:

Tax Refusal

On March 15 there were among those who did not pay their Federal income taxes the following 59 persons who joined together to support a statement distributed by the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers, 2013 Fifth Ave., N.Y., N.Y. Reverend Ernest Bromley is chairman of this subcommittee of Peacemakers: A.J. Muste is secretary of Peacemakers. A part of their statement is: “Feeling that war must inevitably come unless something drastic is done by individuals to show their unwillingness to go along with war-making policies of their governments, we the undersigned state hereby that we are not going to pay our federal income taxes due March 15. For some of us this means that we will not pay that percentage which corresponds to the nation’s outlay for militarism; for others of us it means we will not pay even the first cent for the maintenance of a government whose main business is preparation for annihilation…”

The signers were: Ernest and Marion Bromley, Golay Rd., Gano, Sharonville, Ohio; Lindley and Emma Burton, Low Buildings, Bryn Mawr, Pa.; Horace and Ava Champney, 512 Phillips St., Yellow Springs, O.; Sara Chase, 1525 Sutter St., San Francisco, Calif.; Samuel and Clarissa Cooper, 214 Eastbourne Terr., Moorestown, N.J.; Dorothy DaPonte, Rte. 4, Box 374, Mobile, Ala.; Margaret E. Dungan, Wallingford, Penna.; Arthur Evans, Awbury, Penna.; Rebecca Winsor Evans, Radnor, Penna.; Fyke Farmer, Bellevue Dr., Nashville, Tenn.; Rev. Marion Frenyear, So. Hartford, N.Y.; Henry and Beatrice Dyer, Yellow Springs, O.; Walter Gormly, 412 N. 3^rd St., W., Mt. Vernon, Iowa; Konrad Halle, 76 Pinehurst Ave., New York 33, N.Y.

Gerald Haynes, R.R. No. 3, Freeport, Maine; Ammon Hennacy, Rte. 3, Box 227, Phoenix, Ariz.; Rev. George Houser, 21 Audubon Ave., New York 32, N.Y.; Woodbridge O. Johnson, Jr., 106 W. 3^rd St., Parkville, Mo.; Sandy Katz 232 W. 29^th St., New York 1, N.Y.; Ruth C. LaBarrer, 6 Nutt Ave., Uniontown, Pa.; Sarah B. Leeds, 28 E. Main St., Moorestown, N.J.; Walter and Emily Longstreth, 140 N. 15^th St., Philadelphia 2, Pa.; Mary Bacon Mason, 31 Pleasant St., Newton Center, Mass.; Rev. Maurice F. McCrackin, 1111 Dayton St., Cincinnati 14, O.; Mary S. McDowell, 555 Ocean Ave., Brooklyn 26, N.Y.; Rev. A.J. Muste, 21 Audubon Ave., New York 32, N.Y.; Ax Nelson, 501 Benvenue, Los Altos, Calif.; Wallace and Juanita Nelson, Golay Rd., in Gano, Sharonville, O.; Ray and Jean Olds, Yellow Springs, O.; Raymond F. Olds, Monterey, Mass.; Storrs F. Olds, Monterey Rd., Great Barrington, Mass.; Jim Otsuka, Rte. 1, Cloverdale, Mich.; Mrs. Gordon Parker, 1401 Wood Ave., Colorado Springs, Colo.; Mabel G. Parker, 1804 Wood Ave., Colorado Springs, Colo.;

James and Paula Peck, 552 Riverside Dr., New York, N.Y., Miriam Pennypacker, 6420 Drexel Rd., Philadelphia 31, Pa.; Grace Rhoads, Box 90, Moorestown, N.J.; Elizabeth and Edward C.M. Richards, Nur Mahal, R.D. 3, West Chester, Pa.; Francis and Valerie Riggs, 23 Coolidge Hill Rd., Cambridge 38, Mass.; Margaret Schauffler, 100 S. Cedar St., Oberlin, O.; Robert and Marjorie Swann, R. 1, Cloverdale, Mich.; Ralph and Lila Templin, Box 125, Yellow Springs, O.; Caroline F. Urie, 128 S. Walnut St., Yellow Springs, O.; Ellen Winsor, Radnor, Pa.; Abraham and Jean Zwickel, P.O. Box 232, Pismo Beach, Calif.

And here’s an early example of a plea for a “peace tax”-style accommodation for conscientious objectors to military taxation, from the January, 1951 issue:

Tax Petition

On Saturday, December 9, in Whittier, Calif., there was combined with the annual meeting of the southern California office of the Fellowship of Reconciliation a program sponsored by the Peace Board of California Yearly Meeting. One of the results of the day is the following petition:

To the Congress of the United States of America

We the undersigned citizens of the United States of America believe:

That present tensions between the free enterprise and communist group of nations are the result of reliance upon military force as an instrument of political determination;

That the threat or use of such force can never result in a just or mutually satisfactory resolution of these tensions;

That the labor and material expended in building up military might would have and still might lead to a peaceful and mutually satisfactory solution if used instead indiscriminately to rebuild the homes and industries destroyed in the last war.

We further believe:

That the military way violates the commandment “Thou shalt not kill” and the Golden Rule by which a Christian must live.

That to supply the means to induce of compel another to do that which we cannot do is equally a violation of those Commandments.

Therefore relying on our Constitutional Bill of Rights which our nation is this week honoring, and the Right of Petition thereby guaranteed, we humbly pray your august body that you pass legislation exempting all of like religious belief from income tax to be used in support of military establishment and substitute the use of that portion of our tax which is to our total tax as the amount used for military is to the national total, to that committee of the United Nations seeking a peaceful abatement of these tensions, thus giving the citizens of the United States the opportunity of paying taxes for the support of war or peace according to the dictates of their own conscience.

Here are some more tidbits I found in back issues of Friends Bulletin.

This one, from the June, 1948 issue, is an early example of the thaw in the long-forgotten Quaker war tax resistance tradition that began after World War Ⅱ:

Peace Testimony

Two concerned Friends, Bob Vogel and David Walden, who are members of the staff of the Southern California Branch of the AFSC have sent to all meetings in the Pacific Yearly Meeting the following suggested “advice” for implementing our ancient testimony against all wars in terms of current issues.

Friends are exhorted to adhere faithfully to our ancient testimony against all wars and fightings, and in no way unite with any warlike measure, either offensive or defensive, to the end that we may convincingly demonstrate a more excellent way of settling conflicts — the way of Christian love, goodwill, and service to all men.

A living concern having been expressed that Friends[’] practices be consistent with their professions, Friends are urged (1) not to register for any conscription measure nor accept any alternative service for conscientious objectors under a compulsory conscription law; (2) to avoid engaging in any trade or business profession promotive of war or profiting from war activity; (3) to avoid the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries; (4) to refuse to pay taxes for war purposes, paying only that percentage of the tax which supports the civil aspects of government; (5) to educate and counsel their children against the use of military toys and books and the attendance or participation in military drills, organizations, parades, or demonstrations.

Friends are urged to live in that life and power that takes away the occasion for war, to give deep attention to the causes of war and conflict, and to support those efforts of mediation and reconciliation which are consistent with our principles gained through Divine guidance.

5/19/48

The October, 1949 edition gave this transcript of a portion of the trial of James Otsuka over his war tax resistance:

Four Dollars and Fifty Cents

On September 1^st Judge Robert Baltzell sentenced James Otsuka in Federal Court in Indianapolis to ninety days and a fine of $100. Otsuka, a member of Orange Grove Meeting (Pasadena), had refused to comply with an order given by Baltzell August 19 to pay to the government $4.50 in taxes which he owed, this being the amount of his taxes that he had determined from the Statemen’s Year Book and other sources would go to military purposes and which he had given instead to the American Friends Service Committee. He was represented by Earl Robbins, an attorney from Centerville, Indiana. An account of the dialogue heard in chambers where James Otsuka was sentenced indicated that Baltzell, who has been very rough with most c.o.’s appearing before him and rude to this defendant, was concerned with the issue. There follows a part of Carolyn Mallison’s report of the dialogue between Baltzell and Robbins, the attorney, after the defendant had been sentenced and taken away:

Judge:

Do you understand this, Robbins?

Robbins:

I think so, your Honor.

Judge:

I hope not! You are an American. I hope you cannot understand such actions.

Robbins:

I do not condone it myself your Honor, but I can understand it. It reminds me of the refusal of the early colonists to pay the Stamp Tax.

Judge:

You know what happened then. You wouldn’t want that to happen… I don’t see how you can represent him. It is a terrible thing for a young fellow to take all the advantages of living here and then refuse to pay his taxes.

Robbins:

Of course the tax law is different from Selective Service, for instance.

Judge:

In what way?

Robbins:

Selective Service does provide for alternative service for those who are conscientiously opposed to war, whereas the tax law gives no alternative.

Immediately after the U.S. Marshal had departed with Otsuka a group of his friends were invited by Judge Baltzell into his chambers for a consultation on the decision just handed down. Included in the group were Ernest Bromley (editor of News of Tax Refusal, from which this report is taken, Wilmington, Ohio), Lloyd Danzeison [sic] (Peacemaker, Yellow Springs, Ohio), Carfon Foltz, Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Mallison, Jean Olds, Perry Ostroff, Earl Robbins, Ralph Templin, and Caroline Urie. Here again the issue was raised as how one changes a bad law with Judge Baltzell indicating that his job was to judge by existing laws and he would continue to do so until the people through Congress created new laws.

This note, from the February, 1949 edition, gives us a peek into the publicity tactics in play at the launch of the Peacemakers movement:

Ernest R. Bromley (General Delivery, Wilmington, Ohio) writes: “The continuation committee of Peacemakers met in Chicago last week [early January]. Among the things discussed was a plan to get widespread publicity on the tax refusal business just prior to March 15. At present there are about 35 people ready to announce their stand of refusal (some for this year, but all for next year, 1949 I mean). I am writing, therefore, to several who have recently expressed considerable interest in the position in order to see if any of them are ready to join us and use our group as a medium for making their announcement, at least making it at that time.”

An article from the January, 1961 edition also gave some useful background on the “peace tax” law idea. This came in the form of a proposed model bill that was being sent around for review by the Pacific Yearly Meeting to its Monthly Meetings, in the hopes of coming to “a decision on whether not an attempt should be made to enact this concept into law.” The article says that the proposed bill was formulated in response to a presentation on the subject in 1959 by representatives of the Claremont Meeting at the Pacific Yearly Meeting that year.

The proposed legislation called itself the “Civilian Income Tax Act of 1961” and would have created a walled-off fund, governed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and destined “solely to UNICEF” that would receive federal income taxes from conscientious objectors who were willing to pay an extra 5% surtax for the privilege of not having to pay their taxes into the general fund and pay for military spending.

I also noted several mentions of Quakers discussing the idea of voluntarily taxing themselves a certain portion of their income to send to the United Nations as a way of promoting peace. This continued long after the United Nations formally ratified the Korean War, so seems a bit blinkered to me, but there was clearly a lot of wishful thinking about the United Nations that had persisted through earlier generations in the peace movement and their daydreams about an international legal order that would subdue the frightful anarchy between nations.

Another early “thaw” example, a rare one from Canada, is found in the May, 1954 edition:

Calgary Friends… have written the Minister of Finance regarding non-payment of the defense portion of income taxes.

The Quarterly Meeting encouraged Friends to take what ever stand seemed right to them on the tax question as their consciences dictate, and asked the Monthly Meetings to consider the concern of Calgary Friends.

The March, 1955 issue had this eloquent statement from Irwin Hogenauer:

Non-Payment of Taxes

A problem has been raised in a letter from Irvin [sic] Hogenauer (310 East 170 St., Seattle 55, Washington), which has for many years troubled Friends and members of other peace-making groups. It strikes at two basic testimonies of Friends: our conviction that war and preparation for war are contrary to the will of our Father, and our belief in the rightness of a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In our observation, this problem has not been solved by any group of our Society to the satisfaction of all. Perhaps our Yearly Meeting, with its diverse, international background, would be able to add to the thinking of the Society and like-minded persons. The Bulletin would welcome comments; please keep them brief.

―Editor

“In the Adult Study Group of University Meeting,” writes Irwin Hogenauer, “we are using Jospehine Benton’s pamphlet John Woolman, Most Modern of Ancient Friends. In my further reading of The Basis of Quaker Political Concern, the speech by Henry J. Cadbury before the tenth anniversary dinner of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, Washington D.C., I came across another quotation from John Woolman: ‘I cannot form a concern, but when a concern comes I endeavor to be obedient.’…

[“]Farther on in the speech, Henry Cadbury quotes Woolman again: ‘To turn all the treasures we possess into channels of universal love becomes the business of our lives.’ Now I interpret the word ‘becomes’ two ways. First, I suppose, one would say that for Quakers this action of which he speaks ‘will be’ the business of our lives. But I also read that the right channeling of our treasures ‘is becoming to’ the business our our lives. And the present tense means now.

“I have been burdened with a concern for many years. I have not sought it out… Try as I will, especially at the behest of friends and relatives, I can not throw it off, or dodge it, or whatever one does with a concern…

“Mailings from the F.C.N.L. continually remind me… that defense is the primary fiscal consideration of the United States government. This means that the dollars we pay in income taxes are being spent largely for the military establishment, security measures, and related endeavours in the defense machinery.

“What has become of our peace testimony if we can allow the government to take our substance and put it to a use contrary to this testimony?… Who is there who refuses military service who would not also refuse to pay for a bullet, a rifle, an atom or hydrogen bomb?…

“Some say we can not keep from paying it. There are a number of ways if one would but investigate. A result may be imprisonment, but what period in history has not seen some Quakers in prisons?…

“It is also contended that so many federal taxes that go for war purposes are on goods and services that we buy daily. This may be true, but it should not automatically relieve us from thought and action on the tax which is levied directly and often withheld without consent of the earner. With Henry Thoreau, we can not follow the use made of the dollar after we spend it for groceries, telephone services, gasoline, or a railroad ticket. But does this relieve us of all responsibility in this area? In any case we can do something about a tax levied directly on our wage, salary, or other income.”

A letter to the editor the following month took up the call:

More on Taxes

To the Editor:

The Friends peace testimony that Friends cannot support or prepare for war, implies that one can not pay others to prepare for or engage in war. It is not true that one can’t avoid or refuse to pay federal income taxes. To keep one’s income below the tax level is the most practical course. I think — having done so for the last 5 years. A change in employment may be necessary, but can a Friend properly hold a job that causes him to compromise with his testimonies?

If we follow the Richmond Statement, 1950, “Conscientious objection must be complemented by conscientious projection of God’s spirit into affirmative action,” we will be involved in so much volunteer activity for peace that we won’t have time enough for money-making jobs to have a taxable income. The important thing is to do all one is able for peace…

John Affolter
4004 13^th Ave., South
Seattle 8, Washington

(In another letter in the same issue, the writer said that tax resisters could expect to have their bank accounts seized unless “you have no job, raise your own food, and resort to primitive barter… a cumbersome way of moving towards non-participation in the war establishment.” The writer suggested instead that concerned people “influence our legislators” in some unspecified way.)

New Society Publishers began in 1988 to bring out a “Barbara Deming Memorial Series” of books meant to highlight women involved in nonviolent action. The first book in the series was You Can’t Kill the Spirit by Pam McAllister, which included a chapter on women tax resisters, and another separate section on the Igbo Women’s War, which was also a tax resistance campaign in part.

Here are some excerpts from this book:

Injustice, Death and Taxes: Women Say No!

The world just didn’t make sense to thirty-two-year-old Hubertine Auclert. On the one hand she was considered a French citizen expected to obey the laws of her country and to pay property taxes. On the other hand, she was denied the citizen’s right to vote simply because she was a woman. The male rulers couldn’t have it both ways, Auclert decided. She began plotting a way to unhinge the system.

On election day in February 1880, Auclert and several other tax-paying women of Paris initiated the first stage of the action. They stomped past a line of startled men and presented themselves for voter registration. They demanded that they be recognized as full citizens of France with rights as well as responsibilities. They demanded an end to the injustice of taxation without representation. The men were amazed: there was nothing wrong with the system’s inconsistencies as far as they were concerned! The women were turned away. It was time for stage two.

Taking advantage of the publicity the women had generated, Auclert called for a women’s “tax strike.” She reasoned that, since men alone had the privilege of governing the people and allotting national budgets, men alone should have the privilege of paying taxes.

“Since I have no right to control the use of my money,” she wrote, “I no longer wish to give it. I do not wish to be an accomplice, by my acquiescence, in the vast exploitation that the masculine autocracy believes is its right to exercise in regard to women. I have no rights, therefore I have no obligations. I do not vote, I do not pay.”

During the 1880 tax strike, Auclert was joined by twenty other women — eight widows and the rest, presumably, single women. When the authorities demanded payment, all but three of the women ended their participation in the strike. The remaining women continued to appeal the decision. But when law enforcement officers attempted to seize their furniture, Auclert and the others gave in. They decided they had done the best they could to call attention to the injustice.

Auclert was not the first woman to organize against the taxation of women without government representation. Mid-nineteenth-century United States saw a number of women’s rights tax resisters.

In 1858… Lucy Stone decided to publicize the injustice of government taxation of women who, because they were denied the vote, were without representation. Twelve years earlier, in 1846, Henry David Thoreau had spent a night in jail for his refusal to pay the Massachusetts poll tax, an action he had taken in opposition to the U.S. war with Mexico. Now Lucy Stone decided to use the same tactic to publicly draw attention to women’s oppression as voteless taxpayers. When she refused to pay her taxes, the government held a public auction and sold a number of her household goods.

Like Lucy Stone, [Lydia Sayer] Hasbrouck’s radicalism led her to become a tax resister, refusing to pay local taxes in protest against the denial of her right to vote. A tax collector, so the story goes, managed to steal one of Hasbrouck’s Bloomer outfits from her house and advertise it for sale, the proceeds to go toward the taxes she owed.

---

Abby Kelly Foster had always been an active worker and speaker for women’s rights, but, in 1873, at the age of sixty-three, she was newly inspired. She had just heard about Julia and Abby Smith, two sisters in neighboring Connecticut, who were refusing to pay the taxes on their farm in order to protest the denial of suffrage to women. This was just the sort of nonviolent direct action that appealed to Abby. Her husband, Stephen, agreed. That year, they refused to pay their taxes on their beloved “Liberty Farm” in order to give voice to the urgency and justice of women’s suffrage.

When they refused again in 1874, the city of Worcester, Massachusetts took action. The farm was seized and put up for auction to the highest bidder.

Letters of support for the Fosters’ tax resistance poured in from the progressive leaders of the day. Boston abolitionist Wendell Phillips wrote, “Of course I need not tell either of you at this late day how much I appreciate this last chapter in the lives full of heroic self sacrifice to conviction.” Lucy Stone and Elizabeth Cady Stanton sent words of encouragement. William Lloyd Garrison, a pacifist abolitionist, wrote, “I hope there is not a man in your city or county or elsewhere who will meanly seek to make that property available to his own selfish ends. Let there be no buyer at any price.”

Unfortunately, Osgood Plummer, a politically conservative neighbor, bid $100 for the farm, but he retreated when Stephen Foster chided him. Later, Plummer wrote a letter to the local newspaper explaining that he had only wanted to teach the Fosters a lesson about obeying the law.

With no other bidders, the deed to Liberty Farm reverted to the city. For the next few years, Abby and Stephen lived with the fear and uncertainty of losing the farm, but they continued their tax resistance until Stephen’s ill health became an overriding concern. In 1880, the Fosters ended their protest and paid several thousand dollars to save the farm. The point had been made.

In 1911, the Women’s Tax Resistance League of London published a little pamphlet entitled Why We Resist Our Taxes… “The government of this country which professes to be a representative one and to rest on the consent of the governed, is Constitutional in its relation to men, Unconstitutional in its relation to women,” wrote Margaret Kineton Parkes, author of the pamphlet. Parkes did not mean all women, however. She hastened to reassure the reader that the tax resisters were not in the least radical but only fair-minded, concerned with votes only for women householders, certainly not for all women. The League, she claimed, was about passively resisting the unconstitutional government ruling England. Because they had been granted the municipal vote, women tax resisters were more than willing to pay local “rates,” and they promised they’d have equal willingness to pay “imperial taxes” as soon as they were granted the parliamentary vote.

The London tax resisters devised a new way to reach beyond those already enlightened members of the public who attended suffrage meetings. They began making suffrage speeches at public auctions, a tactic that had unexpectedly good results. Many people were converted to the suffrage cause once they had the chance to hear the argument from the resisters themselves. The auctioneers not only permitted the women to make their speeches, but sometimes actively invited the speeches and even addressed the cause in their own words. One auctioneer who openly supported the tax-resisting suffragists ended his remarks by saying: “If I had to pay rates and taxes and had not a vote, I should consider it a great disgrace on the part of the Government, but I should consider it a far greater disgrace on my part if I did not protest against it.”

---

Since the granting of suffrage, women’s tax resistance has most often been undertaken to protest a government’s military spending or its involvement in a specific war — such as the U.S. war in Vietnam. For part of her life, Barbara Deming was a war tax resister. In her essay “On Revolution and Equilibrium,” she explained the rationale for this form of nonviolent noncooperation.

Words are not enough here. Gandhi’s term for nonviolent action was “satyagraha” — which can be translated as “clinging to the truth…” And one has to cling with one’s entire weight… One doesn’t just say, “I don’t believe in this war,” but refuses to put on a uniform. One doesn’t just say “The use of napalm is atrocious,” but refuses to pay for it by refusing to pay one’s taxes.

At 6:30 one June morning in 1959, Juanita Nelson threw on the new white terry cloth bathrobe she’d recently ordered from the Sears-Roebuck catalog and answered her door. Two U.S. marshals informed her that they had an order for her arrest. What a way to start the day.

Juanita and her husband Wally, who was out of town that day, had not paid withholding taxes nor filed any forms for eleven years, so it was, in one sense, no big surprise that the government wanted to see her. “But even with the best intentions in the world of going to jail,” she later wrote, “I would have been startled to be awakened at 6:30 a.m. to be told that I was under arrest.”

She explained to the bright-eyed government men that she would be glad to tell the judge why she was resisting taxes if he’d care to come see her. Then she proceeded to explain why she would not willingly walk out of her door to appear in court.

I am not paying taxes because the overwhelming percentage of the budget goes for war purposes. I do not wish to participate in any phase of the collection of such taxes. I do not even want to act as if I think that anyone, including the government, has a right to punish me for an act which I consider honorable. I cannot come with you.

The government men were not moved. They called for back-up assistance while Juanita considered her situation. Should she get dressed? Would getting dressed be a way of cooperating? Quickly she called a friend on the phone to let others know what was happening to her, and just as quickly she was surrounded by seven annoyed law enforcement officers. There was a brief exchange about her still being in her bathrobe, and one uncomfortable officer asked her whether or not she believed in God. She answered in the negative. (“He did not go on to explain the connection he had evidently been going to establish between God and dressing for arrest,” Juanita later reported.) Suddenly, a gruff, no-nonsense officer said, “We’ll just take her the way she is, if that’s the way she wants it.” He slapped some handcuffs on her and lifted her off the floor. In maneuvering her into the government car, he apparently tried his best to expose the nakedness under her bathrobe while another officer tried to cover her.

As the car carried her into the heart of Philadelphia, she tried to think. “My thoughts were like buckshot,” she wrote of her experience, “so scattered they didn’t hit anything or, when they did, made little dent. The robe was a huge question mark placed starkly after some vexing problems. Why am I going to jail? Why am I going to jail in a bathrobe?” The only thing she was sure of at that moment was that, until her head cleared, she would refuse to cooperate with her jailers. When the car stopped, she was yanked from the back seat, carried into the federal court building, dragged up a flight of stairs, and thrown behind bars.

[S]everal friends stopped by to visit her. (Her phone call had been a good idea.) The first visitors were two men, tax-refusing pacifists like herself. They thought it best, for the sake of appearances, to go to court in the proper clothes. They offered to get some clothes for her, and she agreed — just in case she decided she’d feel more at ease in them.

After the men left, a woman friend stopped by. “You look like a female Gandhi in that robe!” she said. “You look, well, dignified.” Juanita grinned.

When they finally came for her, Juanita, still refusing to walk, was wheeled into the courtroom in her bathrobe. The clothes the men had brought were left behind in a brown paper bag. The judge gave her until Friday of that week to comply with the court order that she turn over her financial records or be subjected to a possible fine of $1000, a year in jail, or both. Juanita Nelson went home.

Friday came and went. Many Fridays came and went. The charges were dropped and she heard nothing more. Every now and then, the Internal Revenue Service sends her a bill or tries to confiscate a car, but so far the government has met a wall of nonviolent noncooperation. They should have known when they saw Juanita in her bathrobe: nothing will make her pay for war.

Most people who take any notice of my position are appalled by my lawbreaking and not at all about the reasons for my not paying taxes. Instead of trying to make me justify my civil disobedience, why do they not question themselves and the government about a course of action which makes billions available for weapons, but cannot provide decent housing and education for a large segment of the population?

---

Like the ascetics of old, Eroseanna (Rose or Sis) Robinson was singularly unburdened by material possessions. She had no bank account, owned no real estate, and when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tried to seize her personal property, they found that all she had was an ironing board, a clock, a quilt, and some clothes.

Robinson took seriously her membership in Peacemakers (an organization founded in 1948 to promote radical, nonviolent direct action). She had been a war tax resister since the early fifties, filing no statements of income and ignoring the various notices and certified letters sent by the IRS. In 1960, thirty-five years old, single and black, Robinson was a skilled artist and athlete; creative, too, in finding ways to live in the United States without paying for the U.S. military. She tried to keep her earnings below the taxable level and for a period managed to spend less than $3 per week for food. She also arranged to earn a withholding-free income from several different work situations. Even with the little money she made, Robinson regularly sent sums greater than the taxes she owed to groups that worked for peace and social justice.

On January 26, 1960, federal marshals descended on Robinson at a community center in Chicago and demanded she come with them. When she refused, they carried her bodily out of the center and to the district court where she was seated on a bench before a judge. She refused to accept the services of a lawyer and asked instead that they lay aside their roles as judge and defendant and speak to each other as two people with genuine concerns. When the judge agreed, Robinson talked. “I have not filed income taxes,” she said, “because I know that a large part of the tax will be used for militarization. Much of the money is spent for atom and hydrogen bombs. These bombs have a deadly fallout that causes human destruction, as it has been proved. If I pay income tax, I am participating in that course. We have a duty to contribute constructively to life, and not destructively.”

After making this statement, she was handcuffed, put in a wheelchair because she refused to walk, and taken to jail.

The next day she was wheeled into court again, where she encountered a different judge. This judge ridiculed her and her supporters who were standing in a vigil in front of the courthouse. He accused her of having an attitude of “contumacious criminal contempt.” He committed her to jail until she would agree to file a tax return and show records of her earnings.

Not only would she not agree to file a tax return, she also would not agree to cooperate in any way with the prison system. She would not walk. She would not eat. She did agree to see one visitor one time — her friend Ernest Bromley, a radical pacifist and member of Peacemakers, who had come to see her in Cook County Jail. He wrote while she dictated a message for all her supporters on the outside:

I see the military system and jail system as one thing. I don’t want to give up my own will. I will not compromise by accepting a lawyer or by recognizing the judge as judge. I would rather that no one try to make an arrangement with the judge on my behalf. I ask nothing from the court or the jail. I do not want to pay for war. That is my main concern. Love to everyone.

On February 18, Robinson was again wheeled into court. It was clear that she would not compromise her principles to spare her own discomfort. The judge sentenced her to jail for a year and added an extra day for “criminal contempt.”

On March 1, she was moved to the federal prison in Alderson, West Virginia. There she continued her fast, though prison officials began to force-feed her liquids through a tube inserted into her nose. She refused to cooperate in any way with her own imprisonment nor did she try to send letters through the system of prison censorship.

Ten members of Peacemakers, including long-time activist Marjorie Swann, set up their tents just beyond the gates at Alderson and issued a press release on May 14. They explained that they were there to show support for Robinson and that most of them intended to fast just as she was fasting. They invited anyone who wanted to talk to stop by the gate where they were camping. The pacifists propped up signs along the stretch of dusty road — “No Tax for War,” “Peace Is the Only Defense,” “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” and “Rose Won’t Pay Income Tax.”

After fasting for ninety-three days, Robinson was suddenly and unconditionally discharged from prison on May 20. The judge who ordered her release said Robinson had become a burden to the prison medical facilities, adding that he felt she had been punished sufficiently. He didn’t mention the picketers camped outside.

When Robinson was released from prison late that Friday afternoon, the first thing she saw was a huge banner held high by her friends — “Bravo Rose!”

---

A number of women have become war tax resisters in reaction to a specific war. Mary Bacon Mason, a Massachusetts music teacher, became a war tax resister in 1946 after World War Ⅱ. She told the government she would be willing to pay double her tax if it could be used only for aid to suffering people anywhere, but would accept prison or worse rather than pay for war. The only possible defense, she said, is friendship and mutual help. Of World War Ⅱ she said:

I paid a share in that cost and I am guilty of burning people alive in Germany and Japan. I ask humanity’s forgiveness.

---

In 1948, Caroline Urie of Yellow Springs, Ohio, bedridden and elderly, gained national attention and inspired many people to consider war tax resistance when she withheld 34.6 percent of her tax. She sent an equivalent amount as a donation to four peace organizations and wrote an open letter to President Truman and the IRS

Now that the atomic bomb has reduced to a final criminal absurdity the whole war system, leading quite possibly to the liquidation of human society, and has involved the United States in the shame and guilt of having been the first to exploit its criminal possibilities, I have come to the conclusion that — as a Christian, Quaker, religious and conscientious objector to the whole institution of organized war — I must henceforth refuse to contribute to it in any way I can avoid.

---

Eighteen years later, and in response to a new war, another woman from Yellow Springs, Ohio, Doris E. Sargent, wrote to the Peacemakers newsletter with a new war tax resistance tactic. She noted that the government had reintroduced a federal tax attached to telephone bills. The money was earmarked specifically for U.S. military expenses. Sargent proposed a radical response — that all those who demanded an end to the fighting in Vietnam ask the phone company to remove their phones in protest. If everyone who opposed the war were willing to make such an extreme sacrifice, real pressure could be put on the government. Then Sargent suggested a less extreme idea — that people keep their phones and pay their bills but refuse to pay the federal tax. Phone tax resisters could send a note with their bills each month, stating that the protest was not directed at the phone company but at the government which was using the phone tax to support war. The idea caught hold, and phone tax resistance became a popular way to protest the war in Vietnam. It is still used today as a form of war tax resistance.

The war in Vietnam turned many people into war tax resisters. Pacifist folksinger Joan Baez set an example as a tax resister early in the war years by withholding 60 percent of her income tax. She was instrumental in persuading countless others to follow her example. In April 1965, she explained:

We talk about democracy and Christianity — and we try out a new fire-bomb. We talk about peace and we move thousands more men and weapons into Vietnam. This country has gone mad. But I will not go mad with it. I will not pay for organized murder. I will not pay for the war in Vietnam.

---

In 1972, life-long Quaker Meg Bowman wrote a letter to the IRS to explain why she had decided once again not to pay her federal income tax.

“Do you carefully maintain our testimony against all preparations for war and against participation in war as inconsistent with the teachings of Christ?” ― Query, Discipline of Pacific Yearly Meeting, Religious Society of Friends (Quakers).

The above quotation is from the book that is intended to give guidance to members for daily living. The book repeatedly stresses peace and individual responsibility.

It is clear to me that I am not only responsible for my voluntary actions, but also for that which is purchased with my income. If my income is spent for something immoral or if I allow others to buy guns with money I have earned, this is as wrong and offending to “that of God in every man” as if I had used that gun, or planned that bomb strike.

When I worked a five-day week it seemed to me that one-fifth of my income went to taxes. This would be equivalent to working one full day each week for the U.S. government. It seemed I worked as follows:

Monday for food.

I felt responsible to buy wholesome, nourishing items that would provide health and energy, but not too much meat or other luxuries, the world supply of which is limited.

Tuesday for shelter.

We maintain a comfortable, simply furnished home where we may live in dignity and share with others.

Wednesday for clothing,

health needs and other essentials and for recreation, all carefully chosen.

Thursday for support of causes.

I select with care those organizations which seem to be acting in such a way that responsibility to God and my brother is well served.

Friday for death,

bombs, napalm, for My Lai and overkill. I am asked to support a government whose main business is war.

Though the above is oversimplified, the point is clear. I cannot work four days a week for life and joy and sharing, and one day for death. I cannot pay federal taxes. I believe this decision is protected by law as a First Amendment right of freedom of religion. If I am wrong it is still better to have erred on the side of peace and humanity.

Sincerely,
Meg Bowman

---

“The only thing of which I’m guilty is financially supporting the war in Southeast Asia against my better judgment until the year 1970,” said Martha Tranquilli when she was charged with the criminal offense of providing false information on her income tax forms.

At 7:30 a.m. on July 19, 1974, Tranquilli stood on the steps of the state capitol building in Sacramento, California and addressed the 100 supporters who had gathered. After a short Unitarian service held on her behalf, the aging white woman with a long gray braid told them in her calm, soft voice that she envisioned the day when scientists and workers would join in refusing to pay war taxes or do war work.

I was very much afraid of going to prison, but I think I have overcome that fear. I plan to read, write letters, and meditate as much as possible. I’m going to try my best to make an adventure out of this thing.

One after another, friends and strangers attending the rally came up to embrace Tranquilli and offer words of encouragement. After some spirited singing, they accompanied her to the federal building where she turned herself in to the federal marshals.

Hers was a media image made to order. “63-Year-Old Tax-Resisting Grandma Goes to Jail” shouted the headlines, and the war tax resistance movement didn’t mind the national publicity Martha Tranquilli generated.

Tranquilli was opposed to the Vietnam War and all the suffering the war was inflicting on the people of Vietnam, the people of the United States, and on the earth itself. She had therefore decided to withhold the 61 percent of her 1970 and 1971 income taxes (amounting to approximately $1,100) which she believed would go to pay for the war.

It was in Mound Bayou, Mississipi that Martha was tried and sentenced for tax fraud in May 1973. Like other war tax resisters, Tranquilli withheld her taxes by listing unusual dependents. Tranquilli listed seven peace organizations as dependents, including War Resisters League, the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Friends Service Committee. (Another war tax resister in the 1970s claimed 3 billion dependents, explaining to the IRS that he felt the population of the earth depended on him and on others to refuse to pay war taxes. That case went to court and the tax resister was acquitted by a court of appeals of the charge of willfully filing a false and fraudulent W-4 form.)

Tranquilli was found guilty of tax fraud, but the judge was reluctant to send her to jail and indicated he’d give her a suspended sentence if she would only apologize and promise not to do it again. When Tranquilli refused this offer she was sentenced to nine months in prison and two years probation. The Mississippi Civil Liberties Union helped her appeal the case and, while the appeal was pending, she moved to California. Both the Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear her case.

On July 19, 1974, after making national headlines and being cheered on by supporters, Tranquilli began her stay at Terminal Island Prison in San Pedro, California. She quickly got involved in the life of the prison community…

After her release, Tranquilli wrote to a friend: “Be sure to say that I did not suffer in prison. It was a learning experience.” Tranquilli continued her tax resistance as well as her work for peace and justice until her death in 1981.

For Mason and Urie it was the Second World War. For Baez, Bowman, and Tranquilli it was the war in Vietnam. Today it is the U.S.-backed war against Nicaragua that motivates many new war tax resisters. In 1987 in Brooklyn, New York, tax resister Donna Mehle wrote an open letter to the IRS which was published in the local newspaper. She cited a religious basis for her tax resistance, protesting the war against Nicaragua.

The decision to come into conflict with the laws of my country is very difficult, but it is a decision rooted in my Christian faith. As a Christian, I am called to affirm life and reject violence… My commitment to tax resistance deepened in the past year when I travelled to Nicaragua. There I saw first hand the effect of my tax dollars ($100 million in Contra Aid 1986/87). I vowed to myself and to the Nicaraguan people I met that I would not be complicit in the U.S. backed Contra war, a war which targets innocent civilians and children.

Mehle informed the IRS that she intended to redirect the money she would have owed in taxes to an alternative fund “which supports life-affirming projects in New York City.”

In the 1980s, some women in the United States proposed a specifically feminist perspective on war tax resistance. In New York City, the Women’s Tax Resistance Assistance distributed a brochure which read in part:

We can’t keep working for disarmament, for women’s rights, including an end to lesbian oppression, and for racial equality while paying for a male-dominated government which impoverishes and exploits us now and threatens to eliminate the world’s future.

On tax day, April 15, 1985, this group performed street theater on the steps of Federal Hall. Some of the women dressed up as pieces of the federal budget “pie” while others, dressed as waitresses, explained the military menu to passersby and handed out leaflets.

---

In Canada in 1982, sixty-eight-year-old Edith Adamson made headlines with her tax resistance. A lifelong pacifist and the coordinator of the Peace Tax Fund Committee of Canada, Adamson was one of approximately sixty Canadians who hoped to prevent the government from using their money to make war. Not that Adamson and the others wanted to keep the money for their own use: they wanted to redirect their dollars into a peace tax fund. With the adoption of the new Charter of Rights in the Canadian Constitution, there was a guarantee of freedom of conscience. “This means,” Adamson explained for news reporters, “that the government should provide a legal alternative to war taxes for those who object to killing on religious or ethical grounds.” Since the spring of 1982, Canadian war tax resisters — who call themselves “Peace Trusters” because they trust in peace, not war — have petitioned their government to develop a peace tax fund which would allow citizens the option of directing their money away from the military budget. They asked for a simple tax form which would allow taxpayers to check whether they want a portion of their taxes to go for warmaking or peacemaking.

In 1982, Edith Adamson explained her involvement:

In a nuclear war, you wouldn’t have a chance to be a conscientious objector. And, being an old lady, I wouldn’t be drafted, so it seemed the peace tax fund idea was a sound way to get at the root of the problem.

I not only want to exempt myself from the killing, but I want to try to influence the government to look at this problem — and other people as well to examine their consciences. A nuclear war would involve everybody and mean total destruction and I couldn’t just hide under my little exemption and stay alive.

This peace tax would be an extension of conscientious objector status for the military. It’s more appropriate today because war now depends more on money than on personnel; it only took twelve men to drop the bomb over Hiroshima, but it took millions, perhaps billions of taxpayers’ dollars in Canada, Britain, and the United States to develop that bomb.

By 1987 there were approximately 440 Peace Trusters in Canada who were withholding a portion of their taxes and putting that money into a peace tax fund. They had agreed to waive the interest on this money in order to pay the court fees involved in taking on a test case to establish the legality of the peace tax fund. The claimant Jerilynn Prior, a physician and Quaker originally from the United States where she was also a tax resister, now lives in British Columbia. In a January 1987 press release, Prior said that paying for war violates her freedom of conscience and religion.

This deep conviction rises from my commitment to work for peace. I try to live my life that way — as a mother, a physician, a teacher, a woman, a citizen of this world community. It would be hypocrisy to voluntarily allow my tax contribution to be used for war or the military or pamphlets about bomb shelters…

Each of us can work for peace in our own life, with our own resources, and in our own way. This tax appeal is the way I must work for peace.

Nigerian women used song in 1929 to ridicule, protest, and pressure a man and, by extension, the system he represented.

In November of that year, women streamed into Oloko, Nigeria from throughout Owerri Province. Word had been sent via the Ibo (Igbo) women’s network that it was time to “sit on” Okugo, the arrogant warrant chief of the Oloko Native Court. “Sitting on a man” was the figurative expression given a traditional process of punishment during which women gathered in front of a man’s home to sing songs which outlined the women’s grievances or insulted the offender. The women would dance and sing all day and all night, and sometimes, for the most serious and unrepentant offenders, give added impetus to their words by dismantling the roof of the hut until the man promised to cooperate.

On this November day, the women prepared as their mothers and grandmothers before them had prepared for the traditional settling of grievances: they bound their heads with ferns, smeared their faces with ashes, and put on the short loincloths tradition ordained. Each woman picked up a sacred stick wreathed with young palm fronds. These sacred sticks were necessary for invoking the spirit and power of their female ancestors. Thus attired, they massed on the district office to “sit on” Okugo until he got the message.

Just days before, the women had met in the market to discuss the new taxation rumors. They remembered that four years earlier, after promises to the contrary, the British had taken a census and begun collecting taxes from the men. The women were worried that taxes would soon be imposed upon them as well, especially since a district officer had ordered a new census in which they and their property would be counted. At the marketplace meeting the women had agreed to spread the alarm and act if any of them were approached for information.

And could anyone doubt their cause for alarm now? Just that morning Warrant Chief Okugo had approached Nwanyeruwa, a married woman. He had asked to count her goats and sheep. She had spat back an insult, “Was your mother counted?” In anger, Okugo had attacked Nwanyeruwa who had immediately set in motion the women’s network. Now the women were ready to act. Nwanyeruwa’s name became the watchword, Nwanyeruwa herself the catalyst.

Carrying their sacred sticks high, thousands of women marched on the district office. They danced. They sang songs of ridicule and protest, they chanted, and they demanded Okugo’s cap of office, taking from his head the symbol of his authority over them. A British officer who witnessed the event claimed that the cap, tossed into the crowd of women, “met the same fate as a fox’s carcass thrown to a pack of hounds.”

After several days of such protest, the women secured written assurances that they were not to be taxed. They also succeeded in having Okugo arrested, tried, and convicted of physical assault and of unnecessarily worrying the population.

When the news of this victory spread through the women’s networks, thousands of other women throughout the region organized to “sit on” their local warrant chiefs. The protest spread to Aba, a major trading center along the railway. The women in Aba, like those in Oloko, dressed in their traditional ferns, ashes, and loincloths and carrying the sacred sticks to invoke the mothers, gathered to dance, sing, and demand the cap of the warrant chief.

This is the eighth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we find ourselves at the beginning of the Atomic Age.

The 17 August 1948 issue covered the Mennonite World Conference. Excerpts:

One of the main arguments for the continued existence of the Mennonite denomination is its belief in non-resistance. Therefore it was particularly fitting that the Mennonite World Conference gave so much time at choice places in the program to emphasize non-resistance.

Dutch Leader for Definite Separation

F[elix]. van der Wissel of Leeuwarden, Holland, surprised his American brethren by his hesitancy in regard to paying taxes to a state that uses so much of them for war. Such heart-searching is in place. However, his radical emphasis upon nonparticipation in government might suggest that Mennonites should believe that government is of God but that unbelievers should run it.

I found van der Wissel’s address — “The Christian and the State” — elsewhere. He said in part:

Personally, I take a more critical attitude toward all state activities than do most Mennonites, even the American Mennonites, in general. It is increasingly a matter of fact that not only in war but also in peace everything in the state is used for the interest of the state. For instance, education is very often used to stimulate a bad type of patriotism. In these cases I believe that we should refuse to give our co-operation. In paying taxes we should also draw a sharper line than we generally do. We should seek the solution more in the manner of Tolstoy than in that of a quiet Mennonitism that sometimes pays its taxes only too willingly. I am convinced that it is tenable, at least theoretically, that we should refuse to pay certain taxes. However, in reality it happens, as a rule, that the state in that case takes even more than its part by force, so that, practically speaking, such a refusal does not have sense. Nevertheless, we must consider which stand we take in this question. This confirms once more the importance of the refusal to use force, because it is also by organic force that one can be compelled to pay taxes. It is my opinion that we do not give enough attention in our Mennonite life to the idea of non-cooperation and social effects of refusal of service. This non-co-operation should not be used as a means to some political goal, as was often the case with Gandhi, but only as a testimony that we cannot give our co-operation for evil things.

This was perhaps an idea whose time had come. By this time, a nonsectarian war tax resistance movement was congealing outside of the traditional peace churches. Ernest Bromley, one of the organizers of this new movement, gave his thoughts in the 5 October 1948 issue:

What Is Caesar’s?

By Ernest Bromley

One interesting fact which ought to be of current interest to Mennonites is their own history in regard to refusing to pay war taxes. Though tax refusal was a potent witness of earlier Mennonites, today it is little recognized that such a testimony ever existed.

From Guy Franklin Hershberger’s Mennonite history entitled War, Peace and Non-Resistance (1944) we have the following information, summary:

Two questions arising out of the American Revolution were easily and definitely answered by the Mennonites. The first was, Shall we take up arms? The answer to this was a positive “No.” The second question was, Shall we give aid to the suffering? This time the answer was a positive “Yes”. But there was also a third question not so easily answered. This was the question of war taxes. The Mennonites, with little objection, seem to have paid their fines for not joining military associations, at least in localities where they were strictly and regularly collected. In addition to the fine the Pennsylvania Assembly levied a special war tax on all inhabitants. Should a non-resistant Christian pay this tax?

Hershberger goes on to tell what they did:

The war tax issue became a serious issue in 1778. Some of the ministers said that they could not conscientiously pay the tax, but Bishop Christian Funk said it should be paid. Funk said: “Were Christ here he would say, ‘Give to congress that which belongs to congress and to God that which belongs to God.’ ” Bishop Andrew Ziegler, the spokesman for the opposite group, said, “I would as soon go to war as to pay the three pounds and 10 shillings.”

In regard to what the Mennonites actually did, he said: “It seems that the Quakers generally refused to pay the tax, then when the government came and seized their property in payment of the tax they let them take it without resistance. What the Mennonites did is not so clear. Apparently most of them objected to the tax and followed the same plan which the Quakers did.”

That Mennonites did refuse is confirmed by Margaret Hurst in her detailed and accurate history of the Quaker entitled, The Quakers in Peace and War:

It is true that in Virginia the early draft laws of the war exempted Quakers and Mennonites. But they endured every distraint and their general refusal to use Continental paper money or to pay war taxes involved them in great difficulty.

Some Mennonites are now becoming particularly sensitive to the import of sending their tax dollars to the U.S. Treasury when they know that 75 cents of every dollar is for financing past present and future wars. They realize that they are directly contributing to the stockpiling of bacterial and atomic weapons and the rapid growth of militarism in almost every area of the national life.

---

Ernest R. Bromley — of Nassau, New York, is active as a member of the Peacemaker group. He has learned of Mennonite and Hutterite activities and submits a thought which we Mennonites have shelved, for the most part.

The Selective Service Act of 1948 brought back registration for military conscription. An article in the 12 October 1948 issue (in the “Mennonite Youth” section) urged Mennonites to refuse to register. But:

The question is raised, “Why draw the line at registration? How about taxes, food for the armed forces, etc.?” I think it is essential to distinguish between what is given to Caesar, and entering into active participation ourselves. Caesar is responsible for how he spends the money received. Even Christ paid taxes to Rome, which had one of the largest military machines of ancient history.

However another article on the topic in the same section of the 30 November 1948 issue said:

One of the most difficult of the pacifist’s problems is the task of removing himself from those aspects of his society which tend to destroy the individual. In this case it is war and warmaking. The consistent pacifist should refuse war taxes, personal services, etc.

The 2 November 1948 issue included this short article:

No Comment Needed

Walter C. Longstretch [sic], Philadelphia lawyer, said, in notifying the Internal Revenue Department that he and his wife would refuse to pay 34.6% of their 1947 income tax which “was used for preparation for war.” “In the Nuremburg trials, the U.S. maintained the principle that a citizen of Germany should refuse to obey his government when his government orders him to do an evil act. The principle is equally valid for the citizens of the United States including myself.”

We haven’t read what happened to the lawyer and his wife! ―From the Salem Mennonite Church Bulletin, Freeman, South Dakota

The following filler bit appeared without attribution or further comment in the 30 November 1948 issue:

“Mennonites… generally refused to pay taxes during the Revolutionary War. They too relaxed, and few of them today realize tax refusal was significant in their history. The Hutterite confession allowed the payment of no taxes for ‘warfare, destruction of life, and shedding of blood.’ ”

Another of the same sort appeared in the 7 December 1948 issue:

“Tax refusal is in itself… powerful enough to have changed the course of history many times; for example, the movement led by Wat Tyler in ⅩⅣth Century England, and the Indian independence movement.”

Clearly there was something in the air.

A board of Associate Editors was appointed to help form the editorial policy of The Mennonite for the first time in 1948. One of those editors, Jacob J. Enz, took over as acting editor in August, which is about when this flurry of tax resistance notices broke the post-war logjam of several years when the subject was hardly mentioned. Enz wrote a book on The Christian and Warfare, arguing for pacifism’s roots in the Old Testament, so he seems to have been especially attracted to the non-resistance philosophy. Maybe that explains it.

This is the tenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we finish off the 1950s.

In general, except for a brief flurry of mostly noncommittal articles in the late 1940s, The Mennonite seemed to steer clear of the topic of war tax resistance thereafter, with a few exceptions.

In the 19 January 1954 issue, Lloyd L. Ramseyer wrote of “The Sin of Just Being Good” — that is of “people who are content to just be good without concerning themselves very much with the evil about them.” One way this might display itself?

Do we sometimes shift the responsibility to others, saying this is no business of mine? May it be that we sometimes even employ others to do what we think it is wrong for us to do ourselves, and then seem to feel that it is not our affair?… If three-fourths of my tax dollar goes for war, can I have a conscience clear of it?

An article on “Taxes” in the 5 October 1954 issue gave some very middle-of-the-road advice:

In the classic passage, Matthew 22:17–22, Jesus states that He expected His followers to pay taxes.

“Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

Very briefly, we want to say four things:

1. Christians ought to be honest in filing tax returns…
2. Christians should not pay too much tax…
3. Christians ought to take advantage of deductions and through contributions…
4. Christians ought to study best ways to give as to tax…

There was not even a hint of a suggestion that a Christian ought to be concerned about what use Caesar puts the tax to, or might have to draw a line somewhere and refuse. The “Render Unto Caesar” episode is portrayed as though when Jesus was asked whether Jews ought to pay taxes to Caesar or not, he had simply replied “yes” but in a more wordy way than necessary. (“When they heard this, they marvelled…” perhaps this is just a mistranslation for “they yawned and checked their wristwatches.”)

The 8 February 1955 issue also had an article on the income tax that uses a different verse to also counsel tax obedience:

The time of year has come again when the citizens of our country will have to pay income tax. The question is sometimes raised, should Christians pay this tax? A large percentage of the income tax money goes for war purposes. A Christian obeying the new commandment of Jesus to love his neighbor as himself cannot possibly be in accord with hatred, strife, and bloodshed resulting from war. What then shall we do about it? Refuse to pay and come in conflict with the laws of our country?

Jesus our Lord has given us a very clear teaching on this subject in Matthew 17:24–27. The collector of the tribute money asked Peter if Jesus paid tribute. Peter answered, “yes.” Jesus preventing Peter from telling him the incident, asks Peter “of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers?” Peter said of strangers. Jesus answered, “then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we offend them, go to the sea, cast a hook, and take the first fish thou catchest, open his mouth and take out the coin therein and give it to the tribute collector.”

The Roman tribute money was used mostly for military purposes. The Roman Empire was then ruling the major part of the then known world. It required large armies to subdue and occupy these many nations. The money consumed for military purposes was a large sum. Jesus asked Peter to pay for both of them.

Tax was again the subject of an article in the 19 March 1957 issue, but this time the message is much changed:

Taxes

Daniel Graber
Pastor, Silver Street Church, Goshen, Ind.

Dear Quiet of the Land;

PAX… VOLUNTARY SERVICE… 1‒W… What does it all mean? Yes, it means a positive witness for peace; but in a vision the other night I heard 1000 angels shouting, “Awake! Awake! Ye Quiet of the Land!”

And then the angel Gabriel went on to explain: “Ah, yes, you Mennonites are righteous, peace-loving, law-abiding citizens of your land; but what are you doing at this time so near the death of your Lord? Does not your Christian conscience move you at more points than that of nonresistance to war and your interest in finding a peaceful alternative?

“You who proclaim to the world that you are Christ’s disciples would now also deny thy Lord! Ah, yes, my Lord did boldly say, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s’; but are you living under the Roman Empire where you have no political freedom? No, you are citizens in a free republic, a land founded with an appreciation for your conscience. Did you not hear the words of John Milton: ‘The passage “render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” does not say “Give Caesar thy conscience.”’

“You, the Quiet of the Land, are ordering a huge portion of that which crucifies your Lord when you pay your federal taxes. Did you know, fine Mennonites, that you are ordering H-Bombs which will destroy cities of a million men, women, and children?… Did you know you are ordering massive retaliation which will destroy most of mankind and cause more mass suffering than our world has ever known?… Did you know you are ordering nuclear bomb tests which poison the atmosphere for a hundred generations yet unborn?… Did you know you are ordering the top secret horror weapon, by paying in advance for it, to be delivered any day now?”

As Gabriel finished, the chorus of angels replied from the background; “No! Gabriel, No! Most Mennonites did not order these horrible weapons. They were ordered for them unawares — yet we must admit they did give silent consent. Most of them didn’t realize that Washington sent all of them a bill for these macabre instruments of suicide and moral degradation in the name of democracy.”

That bill for the coming year amounts to $43,300,000,000 for Defense, or 60 per cent of the total estimated expenditures of the national government. Over half of the total budget is raised from individual income taxes, Mennonites included.

In 1928 20 per cent of the budget went to the War and Navy Departments to defray the cost of national security. In 1938 this item went down to 14 per cent of the budget. Possibly these figures do not mean very much now, but taken in comparison to the present amount, it is ten times less than the 43 billion dollars now at our doorstep.

At what point, my dear friends, does one cease to add a pinch of incense and begin to engage in idolatrous worship, and thus deny our Lord? The cost of the Federal Government operation in the 1938 budget was $55 per person, even then more than what many people gave to the church. The 1958 budget will cost about $455 per person. If you wish to put this into the Mennonite picture, here is an up-to-date report.

In Elkhart County, Indiana, where the population is 84,512 (1950 Census), there are over 8,800 Amish and Mennonites (Mennonite Encyclopedia). Elkhart County will pay $43,642,912 as their share of the cost of federal government spending. It is assumed that Mennonites of Elkhart County will pay at least their share, which amounts to more than 10.4 per cent, or $4,538,862 plus.

If we could believe that even 40 per cent of the budget would be legitimately used for democracy, it means that the Mennonites of Elkhart County alone are putting into preparation for future wars close to three million dollars a year. That amount of money would be sufficient to operate the entire MCC program for more than a year, or to build several new Mennonite Biblical Seminaries, or a number of hospitals, old people’s homes, colleges, high schools, etc.

From the soldiers of the cross we hear these testimonies concerning taxes. John Woolman, who refused payment in 1775: “To refuse active payment at such a time might be construed to be an act of disloyalty, and appeared likely to displease the rulers, not only here but in England; still there was a scruple so fixed on the minds of many Friends that nothing moved it.”

Bishop Andrew Ziegler, a Mennonite, in the Revolutionary War period; “I would as soon go to war as to pay the three pounds and ten shillings.”

A.J. Muste (Secretary Emeritus of the Fellowship of Reconciliation): “The two decisive powers of government with respect to war are the power to conscript and the power to tax. In regard to the second I have come to the conviction that I am at least conscience bound to challenge the right of the government to tax me for waging war, and in particular for the production of atomic and bacterial weapons.”

Ernest and Marion Bromley (Sharonville, Ohio): “We regard it as the prerogative of every individual to refuse to aid this government or any other government either to prepare for or to engage in war. The time has come when men ought no longer to depend solely upon their spoken witness against war. They ought to prepare themselves for outright resistance by a thorough-going dissociation with the war-making system. No testimony for peace can afford to become a timid shadow. No matter what one may say against our armaments, if he is still paying for armaments, it seems to be talking peace and preparing for war.”

“Awake! Awake! Ye Quiet of the Land!” Think before you begin paying 1957 Defense dollars. Convert them to Peace and the Church today.

―From The Christian Evangel.
(slightly condensed)

An article on “Christians and Bomb Tests” in the 11 March 1958 issue touched on war tax resistance briefly:

Christians have responded to the challenge of this issue in various ways. A few have refused to pay the proportion of their tax that is used for military purposes. Some have voluntarily limited their income to the low level that is tax-exempt…

The 9 June 1959 issue included Don and Eleanor Kaufman’s letter to the IRS:

Can Christians Pay for War?

As Mennonite Christians filed their income tax returns for the past year, more than one was disquieted to realize that tithing Christians were not giving nearly as much to further God’s kingdom as they were paying for military preparation for war! Two Mennonites decided to give voice to this concern in the following letter.

---

U.S. Treasury Department
Internal Revenue Service
Washington 25, D.C.

Gentlemen:

In filing income tax returns for 1958 we believe it is necessary to clarify our concerns. Like others who have been perplexed by the irresponsible use of tax money for military purposes, we are earnestly seeking for a constructive way in which to be honest with what we understand about the issue. Personally, we are unable to acquiesce easily to the present military expenditures of our government which we believe, are irrelevant to the problem they are trying to solve. One cannot change ideologies or correct evil by destroying those in whom these forces reside.

In an effort to reduce our cooperation in a warmaking system to a minimum, we seriously considered refusing payment of that portion used for military expenditures (which we understand is about 73 per cent of federal taxes). Since we object on religious grounds to participation in war and military preparation in any form, we believe, like Milton Mayer, that we are denied the free exercise of our religion (guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution) when forced to pay income taxes used for military purposes.

If money represents a part of a person’s life, as we believe it does, then it logically follows that a Christian will have ambivalent feelings about professing peace and good will while at the same time supporting explicitly destructive forces within a government. As there are provisions for conscientious objection to military service, there should also be provisions for conscientious objection to making H-bombs or paying for the making of them.

Consequently, in the interests of our government and all people, we are looking for some alternative whereby it would be possible to channel that portion of tax money to those causes which contribute to the welfare of people — those legitimate functions which are constructive and not destructive of human value.

We hope that the United States government will accept our offer to pay the equivalent or more of the military tax to some mutually agreeable agency, organization, or institution, like CROP, MCC, Church World Service, or the United Nations (UNESCO, Technical and Economic Assistance Program, etc.), which is committed to a peaceful program for all men. We feel that a voluntary arrangement something like Edith Green’s bill H.R. 12310 is necessary if we are to make possible the conditions of a lasting and abiding peace.

(This was the earliest of the “peace tax fund” legislative proposals. It set up a fund to be used to give aid developing nations, and would have allowed taxpayers to get up to a 2% deduction on their taxes by donating to the fund.)

As Christians, we are not seeking exemption from the payment of taxes, but we are searching for a right to determine how those taxes are used, especially those which we contribute personally. It is clear to us that a Christian has a responsibility to government, significantly because in a democracy he is a real part of the government. Because the Christian knows something of the value and importance of community he will do everything he can to contribute to the stability and welfare of government on all levels.

Yet if this person realizes the destructive character and devastating results of all military preparation, he will consider it his patriotic duty to do what he can to avoid collective disaster. We believe responsible citizenship implies that there is no blanket endorsement for what a government does. Its actions must be tested and if they are found to be outside of the purpose of God they are to be challenged.

We hope you will feel with us the urgent need to recognize the priority which God always deserves in every human decision. We would appreciate your thoughtful response to this crucial issue.

Don and Eleanor Kaufman
Moundridge, Kansas

The 28 July 1959 issue reported as follows:

War Tax Concern

Akron– Concern for payment of war taxes has been expressed by the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren. Board Executive Secretary W. Howard Row writes, “The concern is real and the problems to implement (an alternative to payment of war taxes) are great. However, probably no greater than that of securing an alternative to military service.” In a resolution shared with MCC and similar organizations the General Brotherhood Board states: Because there is a growing interest among Brethren and others in finding a positive alternative to the payment of that portion of federal income taxes that go for war preparations, the General Brotherhood Board voted that explorations be made with the appropriate agencies of government to the end that an acceptable constructive alternative be provided for all those persons who, by reason of religious training and belief, conscientiously object to the payment of that portion of income taxes going for military defense. These explorations might be made in concert with one or the more of the other organizations with which we are associated or if necessary by Brethren alone.”

A similar reaction was recently expressed by two Mennonites. Mr. and Mrs. Don Kaufman (Moundridge, Kan.) who are under appointment as MCC workers in Indonesia [and who] assert in a letter to the U.S. Treasury Department: [quote from above letter omitted]

On 29 August 1959 the MCC Executive Committee met, and, according to a later article on the meeting, “[r]eferred to Peace Section the invitation from the Church of the Brethren to study whether there might be a positive alternative provided by the U.S. government for persons conscientiously opposed to paying that portion of income taxes going for military defense.”

The Mennonite Central Committee annual report for 1959 included a report from this “Peace Section.” They noted that “throughout our constituency… [c]oncern is evident in discussions about possible participation in various protest actions and about the propriety of paying income taxes that are used so largely for war purposes…”

Our next episode will pick up as the tumultuous 1960s begin.

This is the fourteenth in a series of posts about war tax resistance as it was reported in back issues of The Mennonite. Today we continue our trek through the 1960s.

A letter to the editor from Don Kaufman in the 18 February 1964 edition worried that “we have allowed conscientious objection to war to become meaningless by default” in the modern age when war is fought more by machinery than by troops. He made note of John Howard Yoder’s essay on war tax resistance (see yesterday’s post), and said “it would be interesting to know how many individuals in Mennonite congregations would qualify as authentic C.O.’s if examined on the basis of the U.S. position “which has through its courts held several times that any substantial contribution for war by an individual is legal proof that he is not a genuine objector to war.”

If Christians courageously refused to have their income tax money used for military purposes they would discover that it costs a person something to be a conscientious objector to war, even in the United States of America.

Judging by or record as a Mennonite Church it would appear that we are confused about what it means “to obey God rather than men.” For example, in our personal life we oppose war (as most Mennonites have throughout their history), but with the money which we earn we support it (as most Mennonites have throughout their history). Who can honestly say that this is consistent with “the Way of the Cross”? I suppose the majority of Christians in our day consider it either presumptuous or scandalous when a person refuses to pay war taxes. And yet if, as Ernest Bromley has observed, the taxpayer now plays the part the soldier used to play, then it becomes imperative that we examine more carefully what it means to pay taxes. When paying taxes, are we really being faithful citizens of God’s kingdom of love?

A letter in the 17 March 1964 edition responded that tax resistance, like conscientious objection to military service, probably would have little effect on the government’s ability to wage war.

Further, it is a naive mistake to believe that because a person has not served in the army or paid taxes used for defense, he has not participated in or contributed to what used to be called the war effort. The maintaining and developing of our defense system is tightly interwoven with our “peaceful” economy. The company that makes light bulbs also makes jet engines and electronics equipment for the government. The airplane that takes our Mennonite leaders to meetings and conferences around the world is likely to have been made by the same company that furnishes the Air Force with B‒52’s loaded and ready on the alert pad.

I believe that we support our government indirectly merely by participating in the economy of the country, and that it is now our duty to try to affect policy making, not merely by the indirect methods of “ban the bomb” and alternative service (and perhaps taxes) but by constructive, dynamic participation in government itself.

Melvin D. Schmidt continued this conversation in the 21 April 1964 edition. Excerpt:

[D]oes not an ethical decision sometimes involve simply saying “no” to evil as we understand it? “We mean to do good if possible, but in no case do we intend to do harm” (Milton Mayer). This seems to be central in the tax refuser’s philosophy, and it may be a lot more realistic and a lot less sentimental than the noble alternative of “dynamic participation in government itself” — whatever that phrase means.

The National Council of Churches convened a conference on church & state issues in early February, 1964. A Mennonite attendee noted:

In the plenary sessions most discussion centered around the question of civil disobedience. Can the church ever encourage Christians to refuse payment of income tax?…

The 21 April 1964 issue reported on the jailing the previous year of Quaker war tax resister Arthur Evans on contempt of court charges for refusing to file an income tax return.

Finally, the 29 December 1964 edition reprinted “A Call to Income Tax Protest” by four members of the Church of the Brethren: Dale Aukerman, John Forbes, Merle Crouse, and Jerry Royer. Here is the text of that Call:

The per capita military expenditure of the United States rose from less than $8 in 1938 to $268 in 1958. The Government has been spending less than one million dollars yearly on the problems of disarmament, in contrast to $47 billion on arms, a ratio of one to forty-seven thousand.

C.P. Snow, the eminent British physicist and novelist, has indicated that by 1966 some twelve countries, including China, might have nuclear weapons at their disposal. He warns that, unless much progress is made toward disarmament, “within ten years from now some of those bombs are going off. We know, with the certainty of statistical proof, that if enough of these weapons are made by enough different states, some of them are going to blow up — through accident, or folly, or madness.”

This letter, primarily to members and friends of the Church of the Brethren, is an appeal that we consider anew as Christians whether we can without protest go on handing over our income tax money when 75 percent of it is used in a way that makes more likely a general destruction of human life on the earth.

Hans de Boer has written, “He who sees a wrong and does not raise an outcry makes himself guilty of the wrong.” We may feel uneasy about that word outcry. The effectiveness of protests does not necessarily increase with their loudness. But to the essential meaning we can perhaps agree: When we see wrong, we should give a strong No. Our lives should be an agape Yes to God and men and a radical No to evil. Jesus Christ is God’s Yes to us and His No to sin; and we are called in Him to embody that Yes and No.

American Christianity no longer tends to be a chain of narrow negativisms, but rather a blur of cushiony positives. This shift has affected American pacifism. The lament is still often heard that pacifism is understood too negatively. We might do better to regret that pacifism has become so mildly and acceptably positive. Alternative service is a highly significant long-range witness. Its sorry failing is that in America it has so little potency any more as a No. Draft refusal in France is a jabbing barb in the national conscience. But America is quite content and even in a way reassured about its moral idealism to have handfuls of 1‒W’s working here and there.

With every lost year thrusting us much closer to the point of no possible disarmament return in the nuclear race it is imperative that we give a far more drastic No to nuclear madness than we have been giving by alternative service. From Nazareth’s synagogue through the last week in Jerusalem Jesus proclaimed and lived a jolting emphatic No to the folly of His countrymen. When a building filled with people has caught fire, drastic measures are in order.

Refusal to pay federal income tax for war (matched by a self-imposed alternative tax for peacemaking) has a potency for jarring the public conscience which draft refusal has lost. For ICBM’s our money is far more necessary than our manpower. Subservient brainpower is always there. Along with it the government needs more and more money and can get along with fewer yielded bodies. When we deprive the government of our tax dollars (even though the amounts and numbers involved be small), we prick the central vital nerve of the military Leviathan, because money — not manpower — is the crucial basis of its present spread.

In earlier periods the draft refusal No of the historic peace churches had considerable impact. But we in these churches have been slow to see that this No does not at present any more than begin to express the intensity of the No we should be declaring against nuclear war. It is past time for us to turn from our suburban coziness and discover together new Golden Rules to set forth in. We should be engaging in more than tax protest but in the deepening crisis, tax protest would seem clearly to join draft refusal as part of the Christian’s minimal No to mass annihilation.

Considerations.

1. George Macleod of the Iona Community has pointed out, “This is the first age in all Christian history where the majority of Christians have no conscience at all, no principle, nothing to go on, except fear and political consideration.” And we who can lay claim to having some conscience, haven’t we become pretty insensitive? Remember the horror you felt in those early August days of 1945. There is little of it left. Years of living with the ghastly prospects and the all-pervasive deceit of the mass media have lulled us. The Church of Christ desperately needs horror at what the ultimate nuclear act would mean for man, at what it would be under God.
2. If we continue right on complacently paying federal income tax, with seventy-five cents out of every dollar going for the Pentagon “answer,” aren’t we lacking in horror, in conscience?
3. In colonial times and during the Revolutionary War there was much tax refusal by Quakers, Mennonites, and Brethren. An irate critic of the Church of the Brethren charged, “They not only refused to take up arms to repel the savage marauders and prevent the inhuman slaughter of women and children, but they refused in the most positive manner to pay a dollar to support those who were willing to take up arms to defend their home and their firesides, until wrung from them by the stern mandates of the law. They did the same when the Revolution broke out. They might at least have furnished money. But no; not a dollar!” It is not certain whether this writer referred to taxes or only to the substitutionary sum paid in lieu of the militia draft. In either case the Brethren then had an alert ethical sensitivity about turning over their money for war.
4. “But the New Testament says we should pay taxes.” It does indeed. But if we hold that, just as it says that we are to obey the state, there are times when we must obey God rather than the state, may there not be times when, lest we go against God, we must not give to Caesar? Is the exhortation to pay taxes any more an absolute rule than the exhortation to obey the state? Was it right in the Civil War when conscientious objectors paid the sum the Government demanded of them for the outfitting of substitutes? Was Thoreau wrong in refusing to pay the special tax levied for fighting the Mexican War? May there not be at least some situations where tax refusal is justified, and if some, then isn’t the present surely one? [There were typesetting errors in this paragraph that I have tried to correct, but I’m not confident I got it right. ―♇]
5. It is true that a portion of national taxes has always gone for war. Taxes have been a part of the Christian’s involvement in the good and evil of society. Christians are not to flee from taxes or tainting involvement. But when the $8 has jumped to $268 and the ratio for arms and for disarmament is forty-seven thousand to one, when preparation for colossal evil has become the central endeavor and expenditure of the state, pressing us further and further along a course leading to the extermination of mankind, isn’t there then for the Christian a freedom and an imperative to say No with all that he is and has?
6. “But what else can you do?” say most pacifists. “The Government will get your money anyway.” That attitude seems suspiciously similar to the one the big majority of people hold about the draft. Even those whose taxes are withheld can still protest. No one need be complacent. To take a stand, in the monetary context, against the nuclear blasphemy is a possibility for us all. And even if the Government prosecutes (which it usually does not) and takes the tax objector’s money (if he has any), the crucial thing is that the lulled masses hear an incisive Christian No.
7. “But tax refusal is too extreme. People just won’t understand.” Most won’t maybe; but instances of tax refusal will hardly make them blinder about war than they already are. The prospects are dim for enough people coming to enough common sense to prevent World War Ⅲ. Yet it is heartening to see how in England the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been rapidly gaining wide popular and political support. A great many formerly indifferent people are getting their eyes opened. This can happen in America too, especially if we reach the phase when the arms race begins to force severe alterations in our opulent pattern of living. If we can find ways of bringing to people’s attention that the nuclear race is a ghastly dead end, there are many who will listen. If we bob right along in the whole affluent military-geared rush of society, income taxes and all, can we be expressing a No that will really be noticed?
8. And if you say for yourself, “Tax refusal is too extreme,” — why? Are you doing more than indicating an emotional disinclination? What reasoned Christian case can you make for paying federal income tax in present circumstances?

Possibilities for protest.

1. Some have changed work so as to get out of the withholding tax setup. This is nearly out of the question for most in the setup. Clearly, tax protest is not to be the axis of our lives — nor is peacemaking. But Jesus Christ, our axis and our peace, can guide us into more forceful witness to His Yes and His No.
2. Persons of a given area whose taxes are withheld could go together to hand in their returns and protest against the use of their money. Where such group action is not feasible, the individual can send a letter of protest along with the return and give his protest circulation otherwise. A person in religious or service work whose tax is being withheld could discuss with his organization what might be done.
3. Many pacifists keep (or find) their income at a level where they do not need to pay income tax. This tax avoidance is good in respect to not supporting war; but it usually has little effectiveness as a clear protest.
4. If a person’s taxes are not automatically withheld (in full), then, whether income be taxable or not, the most forceful stand lies in not filing a return and in making this refusal a focus of one’s broader public No against nuclear war.
5. Most tax objectors figure that through various indirect taxes they pay their share toward the constructive fraction of governmental activity. If one pays a fourth of the income tax stipulated, 75 percent of that fourth goes for war.
6. As a symbol of the Yes that overarches this urgent No the tax objector will certainly want to give a corresponding voluntary payment, plus no less, say than 20 percent, to some peacemaking program, preferably non-sectarian, like a phase of UN activity or the work of the Fellowship of Reconciliation. This emphasis on giving for peace rather than for war can be crucial in enabling others to see what really is at stake. The Brethren Service Commission and representatives of the Mennonites and Quakers have begun working for federal legislation allowing an alternative tax. A Quaker group has drafted “A Proposed Bill” under which it would be national policy in working for enduring peace, and in recognizing freedom of conscience, to provide a proper means by which Federal income taxes of individuals having sincere convictions against military preparations may be designated for the United National International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF). (Single copies available free from Peace Committee, Pacific Yearly Meeting of Friends, Box 61, Claremont, California.) Such legislation will almost certainly not be passed unless there are far more objectors than now. The present anti-permissive atmosphere does in fact afford better acoustics for the imperative No.
7. It could be asked, If such a bill becomes law, would you definitely feel that you should take advantage of it and pay the alternative tax? If so, on what basis can you now decline to take the stand which many must take for such legislation to come?
8. Isolated tax objectors have at times made a notable witness. But so much more can be done by groups of Christians acting in concert. If we are called to act, we are called to act together. Consider what an impact there might be if twenty — or fifty — Brethren ministers and many others would join in a declaration on why they believe they must refuse lo hand over their money for nuclear war and are giving it for peacemaking. Might not such a declaration prove to be the most resounding Brethren word against war in a long time?

During World War Ⅱ the Church of the Brethren held somewhat more firm than they had in War Ⅰ. At least they largely kept their misgivings about war funding, if they were not very consistent about following through on them. A new pacifist war tax resistance movement began to gel outside of the traditional peace churches in the late 1940s, and I’ll be looking to see how or whether the Brethren contributed to this.

The Brethren Evangelist continued to look at war bonds mostly as a positive example of giving that ought to be emulated by Brethren in the post-war period through Church-directed giving. For example, an article on that theme by the Reverend James E. Ault alluded to war bonds in this way: “We have assisted in meeting goals for War Bonds, Victory Bonds, or Community Fund drives until it has become a part of every day experience. These goals would be of very little value if there were not some greater goal to be reached…” (source).

Things took a very different turn in the Gospel Messenger. Harper S. Will presented “A Seven-Point Program for Brethren” in the 8 February 1947 issue. Will suggested that the arms race and the normalization of military conscription and training meant that Brethren would have to be more active and persistent if they wanted to make progress for a peaceful world. He asked his readers to “[g]o into your closet, quiet your mind, and seek the guidance of the Eternal Spirit” and gave this as one example: “Henry Thoreau did it in the days of the Civil War, and he ended up in jail because he would not pay his taxes.”

In the 28 June 1947 issue, Rufus D. Bowman addressed “The Church of the Brethren and the Cultural Crisis”. According to Bowman, the Church was being overwhelmed by and absorbed into an unchristian culture. One of the symptoms of this was the half-hearted way Brethren upheld their adherence to non-resistance:

During World War Ⅰ our members purchased war bonds and many of our young men went straight into the army. During World War Ⅱ it is evident that the majority of our members compromised with the war system.

“Shall We Continue to Call Ourselves a Peace Church?” asked Ruth B. Statler in the 25 October 1947 issue. Statler noted that most Brethren draftees in the last war went into the armed services without taking any sort of conscientious objector status, and that “[a] great many of our church members bought war bonds.”

The 8 May 1948 issue brought readers news of a war tax resister from the just-emerging modern war tax resistance movement (source):

Mrs. Caroline Urie. wife of a navy officer, a Quaker and veteran social worker, has publicly refused to pay the 34.6% of her income tax which, according to government figures, would go to military expenses. Mrs. Urie wrote President Truman and the U.S. collector of internal revenue that the withheld money would be given to four nonprofit agencies engaged in removing the causes of war. She is willing to pay taxes “for any reasonable constructive purposes.” As a Christian she said, “I must henceforth refuse to contribute in any way I can avoid toward maintaining the institution of war.”

Later that month that was followed up by this note:

This copy of a letter to the Collector of Internal Revenue came to the Messenger desk recently.

Enclosed herewith is my income tax return for 1947.

I wish now to announce to the Collector of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department that I cannot conscientiously continue to pay federal income taxes when so large a proportion of the funds is being used for purposes of war.

This country did not turn to peace at the end of World War Ⅱ, but instead sought to protect and expand an American Empire.

This mad attempt to dominate the world by force of arms, the threat of atomic war, and offers of economic aid only to future allies will lead to devastation and death. I want to dissociate myself as completely as possible from these tragic, suicidal and evil policies, and to do all I can to convince my fellow citizens that we must completely renounce the way of war and violence. ―Marion Coddington, New York, N.Y.

There was also a note in the following issue about a woman who had been denied U.S. citizenship after she stated in her application that she would not be willing to “bear arms in defense of the United States [and] that she had refused to buy bonds in the last war because their proceeds were used to finance war.”

The 17 July 1948 issue noted briefly that “The National Baptist Sunday School and Training Union Congress at Cleveland, Ohio, recently urged churches and religious bodies not to invest in war or savings bonds which may be used in the financing of war.” (source)

The 4 September 1948 issue reprinted some resolutions passed by a Quaker gathering on the subject of conscientious objection to war (source). Among these were that “Friends are urged… [t]o avoid engaging in any trade, business, or profession directly contributing to the military system; and the purchase of government war bonds or stock certificates in war industries. [And t]o carefully consider the implication of paying those taxes, a major portion of which goes for military purposes.” The 25 September issue also reported that the North Carolina Yearly Meeting of Friends had issued a statement on conscientious objection, which also “urged Quakers ‘to realize that by paying federal taxes we are supporting preparation for war,’ but did not advise that taxes not be paid” (source).

Up to this point, all of this sudden interest in war tax resistance has been focused outside the Church of the Brethren — neither Urie nor Coddington were Brethren, and the statements above are from Quaker and Baptist institutions. But in the 25 December 1948 issue is a quote from Rufus D. Bowman, who up to this point has been hinting at war tax resistance without actually endorsing it, in which he finally comes out:

My conviction is that all war is sin and out of harmony with the spirit, life and teachings of Jesus. It is, therefore, wrong to participate in war. When war comes, it is difficult in a totalitarian state to keep from helping the war system. The most Christian position is to remain apart from war as far as possible. Accepting any service within the army puts a person under military orders and clouds his testimony against war. Carrying on constructive service projects under church or civilian direction, the giving of a vigorous testimony against war and the payment of war taxes, and giving our lives for a vital peace program represents a consistent Christian position.

The 22 January 1949 issue continued the new trend of highlighting examples of war tax resisters from other denominations (source):

A Quaker of Moorestown, N.J., William B. Evans, paid his income tax three months ahead of time because he believes in the American government. But he does not believe in war or in the preparation for it; therefore, he deducted from his payment the amount he estimated would be allotted to military purposes. In a letter to the internal revenue office he said that he was giving that money to relief and rehabilitation.

Another note, in the 26 February 1949 issue (source) read:

Refusal to pay taxes that may be used for military purposes on the ground of conscience is being manifested by small groups of people in the United States, Switzerland, and Norway. In Switzerland a growing group of women, many of them teachers, and in Norway Quakers are withholding taxes for military purposes, but stating their willingness to pay the same amounts for constructive projects.

The 2 April 1949 issue carried an update on Caroline Urie’s resistance (source):

Mrs. Caroline Urie, seventy-five year old Quaker widow, of Yellow Springs, Ohio, deducted 32.3 per cent of the first installment of her income tax and will donate the deducted amount to nonprofit agencies working for peace. She estimated the deducted amount would be used for military purposes and expressed her opposition to this use of the tax money because “war and preparation for war in the atomic area is a crime against humanity.”

The 30 April 1949 issue reported on the blooming Peacemakers war tax resistance movement (source):

More than forty individuals throughout America, most of them from the peace churches, submitted only a part of their income tax to the government this year. They sent an accompanying letter saying that they were contributing the rest of the tax to service or peace-making projects. Their basis of refusal to pay all of it was that a high percentage of income tax revenue goes for war purposes.

The 28 May 1949 issue brought the news that “[i]n Norway the Quakers have decided to pay a peace tax to the government instead of the government defense tax recently voted by Parliament. The government has agreed to this arrangement.” (source) No further details were given, though, so it’s difficult to guess what this amounted to practically. The magazine repeated the news in its 2 July issue without adding much in the way of specifics.

There was clearly a hunger for news about war tax resisters, but in all of this there is still no mention of any actual named resister from within the Church of the Brethren itself, except perhaps Rufus Bowman by implication.

The 2 July 1949 issue included this representation of the debate about war tax resistance in the Church of the Brethren at the time (source):

How Does a Pacifist Act?

One says, “I have to stick my neck out.”

• Vigorous efforts to break with a war system are necessary. What kind of logic is it for a person to say he’s a pacifist and pay income tax — a large share of which goes for war?
• If I refuse my income tax payment, I am protesting in the strongest way I know. Anyone can write letters against a tax. They mean little to our legislators. What counts is conviction so strong that persons refuse to pay no matter what the consequences are. If Gandhi had not been ready to go to jail for what he believed, the Free India Movement would have crumpled before it got well under way. We cannot build a pacifist movement if leaders in the Church of the Brethren are unwilling to risk jail for what they believe.

⋮

Another says, “I must act with moderation.”

⋮

• The extreme and antagonistic position of the tax refusers and nonregistrants seems out of harmony with the Master’s deeds and words: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” “Blessed are the meek for they shall inherit the earth.”
• I don’t like it that I am forced through my income tax into supporting war preparations. However, if I refuse payment, the government will collect anyway. The way to fight this tax is to work for a change in the law.

Meanwhile, over at the Brethren Missionary Herald things remained much in the vein of “you gave money for war, won’t you also give some to us?” For example:

How much have members of our churches paid out in taxes and in purchase of war bonds during the past five years? Dare we give the Lord less in the next five years? [1 June 1946]

Today I’ll share what I found in the archives of American Brethren periodicals from the early 1950s concerning war taxes and war bond purchases.

I found most of the items of interest in the Gospel Messenger again, and for the first time these included specified war tax resisters from within the Church of the Brethren. The 25 March 1950 edition gave readers this short notice:

Floyd M. Irvin of Eustis, Fla., sent in only that part of his income tax which would not be used by the Federal government for war purposes. The rest of it, he informed them, he was turning over to a useful church program. He believes that if many more people would do this it would have a telling effect upon military expenditures.

This was the first I’d heard of Irvin. There was a follow-up about his resistance in the 2 September issue (source):

A series of articles in a Lake County, Fla., local paper call attention to the activities of Floyd M. Irvin of Eustis, Fla., on behalf of world peace. While the articles tell a few facts concerning Bro. Irvin’s life, they give special attention to his advocating nonviolent techniques in place of war, and especially to his refusal to pay the share of income taxes which goes toward supporting the military program. Through Bro. Irvin’s efforts a recent article in the Gospel Messenger was used as the basis for a feature in his local paper.

They don’t come right out and claim Irvin as a member of the Brethren here, but they do call him “Bro.” and make the Gospel Messenger connection. I think this is the first explicitly war tax resisting member of a Brethren church named in a Brethren periodical from the modern war tax resistance era.

Another small note was found in the 1 July 1950 issue (source):

Again this year various people, who have conscientious feelings against the tremendous amount of our budget which is being spent for war, are withholding from their income tax the percentages which are used definitely for war purposes. The rest of it they are paying.

I assume this refers to the Peacemakers, who were putting out press releases about organized war tax resistance around this time.

The 28 October 1950 issue included a note about the Monteverde Quaker emigrants (source):

Quaker Group to Leave United States

Twenty-five Quaker residents of Fairhope, Ala., have decided to emigrate to Costa Rica so that they may be free from military demands and from paying “war taxes.” This announcement came from Hubert Mendenhall, the spokesman for the group who range in age from twenty to eighty years. Most of them are farmers.

“Our economy has become so involved with military effort throughout the world,” Mr. Mendenhall said, “that a person can hardly make a living here without being a part of that system.”

A spokesman for the American Friends Service Committee said that this would be the first instance in American history that a group of Quakers had left the country because of their religious pacifist convictions.

A letter to the editor from Mart Sheaffer, in the 18 November 1950 edition suggested that tax resistance was more Christian than the alternative (source):

Tax Refusal

Why do Christians continue to pay the government that portion of tax which is used to support war, since war is contrary to the teachings of the New Testament?

It seems that it would be more Christlike to refuse to pay that portion of tax and to give the same amount — or more — to some worthy Christian cause such as the program of the Brethren Service Commission or some other Christian denomination’s project.

We could then take a receipt for the amount given and turn the receipt over to the government. If it is permissible to teach the gospel, it also should be permissible to live it and practice it.

Nearly a year later the magazine printed a letter in response, disagreeing by giving the old taxes-are-debts argument, and recommending instead prayer rather than civil disobedience (source). Floyd M. Irvin responded in the 20 October 1951 issue (source):

Taxes and Our Responsibility

I would like to express my disagreement with the brother from Grantsville, Md., who states that “taxes are a debt… when we pay this debt our responsibility ends.”

I would say rather that, as a citizen, I am a partner with other citizens both in managing and in financing the affairs of our government. A citizen of a democracy has a definite responsibility in determining the purpose for which his tax money is used. The denial of this privilege by the English government was one of the chief reasons for the revolt of the American colonists and for the birth of our republic. Now that we have this privilege, it becomes a responsibility.

If the fathers of the American Revolution in their day felt an inner compulsion to refuse to pay taxes for the use of which they had no directing voice, ought not followers of the Prince of Peace in our day feel an urge to refuse to pay taxes which are used to finance the killing of our fellow Christians?

This is a question which needs careful consideration. The following questions may stimulate our thoughts on the matter.

Do we as citizens have a responsibility in regard to the use of our tax money which should direct our actions beyond our choice of representatives? In other words, after we have voted to the best of our ability, are we guiltless if our taxes are used to kill our fellow men?

Does the Scriptural injunction to pay taxes apply without exception, or is the payment of taxes to finance a war that destroys God’s children an exception when we should obey God rather than men?

How can we order our lives and finances so that if we refuse to pay taxes the government will not take more than we withhold? Is it time for Christians to organize a non-violent resistance movement against war?

The 21 April 1951 edition again covered the Peacemakers (source):

Group Refuses to Pay “War” Taxes

Fifty-nine men and women, including four Protestant clergymen, in various parts of the country have refused to file federal income tax returns because they find it impossible to support the Korean or any other war. This announcement was made by the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers, a national pacifist group, which released a statement by the fifty-nine saying:

“We are particularly concerned at this time about the situation in Korea, where a civil struggle has been provoked and aggravated by two power states to the point where it is already a major war — one which may be the spark that will set the world afire.

“We find it impossible to support policies and activities of this kind with our allegiance or with our money. We must, therefore, refuse to give money for such purposes of conquest and massacre, and must give it instead to causes which build understanding and world community.”

A.J. Muste of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, sent a separate letter to the collector of internal revenue in his district, declaring that this is the third successive year in which he has refused to file a return or pay taxes. He contended that “anyone who contributes to arming the United States today also contributes to arming Russia — which is the last thing I want to do — in the same way that Russians contribute to American armament, for each government mechanically matches the military preparations of the other.”

The 27 October 1951 issue brought this news (source):

At the auction sale of her husband’s car, Mrs. Arthur H. Emery, Jr., begged those attending the sale not to bid. She said she feared the proceeds might be used for war. The U.S. bureau of internal revenue, which had seized the car, will apply the $145 on the income tax owed by Mr. and Mrs. Emery. They had refused to pay it because they thought it might be used for military purposes.

This letter from Ernest Bromley comes from the 1 December 1951 issue (source):

Tax Refusal

Many people who have been deeply concerned over the large and growing percentage of federal taxes going to war purposes have been prevented from taking any definite action because all funds paid to the federal government go into a common treasury, whether this money is for war purposes or for constructive purposes to which citizens willingly contribute.

The Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers calls attention to the fact that if the increased military appropriations now being voted by Congress under various heads are added together, this will mean a total of around seventy billion dollars for war purposes out of a budget of around ninety billion. The increased appropriations will reflect themselves in a percentage increase in taxes, and this increase will be for purely military purposes and nothing else. We would welcome correspondence from persons who feel a concern over this matter, which should be addressed to Rev. Ernest Bromley, Golay Road in Gano, Sharonville, Ohio.

Another war tax resister from outside of Brethren circles was featured briefly in the 7 June 1952 issue (source):

Woman Pastor Refuses to Pay “War Taxes”

A woman pastor in South Hartford, N.Y., paid only twenty-five per cent of her 1951 federal income tax because she is opposed to the government’s “warlike ventures.” The Rev. Marion C. Frenyear, pastor of the South Hartford Congregational church, said she is a Christian pacifist and “cannot support war in any way,” that in her belief war is against religious principles and taxes should be used to bring peace and disarmament to the world.

For the same reason last year Miss Frenyear paid only twenty-five per cent of her federal tax bill. Walter R. Sturr, collector of internal revenue at Albany, placed a lien against her salary and indicated the same method would be used this year to collect the unpaid taxes.

The delinquent taxes last year were paid by the treasury of the church and the amount was deducted from the pastor’s salary.

The Brethren Missionary Herald seemed to trend conservative. It complained about high government spending and taxes (and saw creeping socialism at every turn), and didn’t hesitate to put the blame for this on the military budget, but this was about as far as it was prepared to go in protest:

The child of God will… pay his taxes…. It is our judgment that the general tenor of the teaching of the Bible allows for protest and even revolt against unjust and exorbitant taxation. Beyond these considerations, however, the Lord’s servant will not try to evade the payment of tribute. [23 February 1952]

The Brethren Evangelist was also largely sticking to its guns and not entertaining any newfangled tax resistance ideas. But the magazine’s intolerance for legalized alcoholic beverages was intense enough that, in the midst of what was otherwise a standard render-unto-Cæsar article, they let this slip in the 4 August 1951 issue (source):

“Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s.” What things does Caesar have a right to claim? Taxes? Yes, we should expect to pay taxes for the privilege of living in such a land as ours. We expect protection of life and property; good sanitary living conditions, and the like — and these cost money. But there is, of course, a limit to which the Christian should be forced to go. For instance, to be forced to pay taxes for the upkeep of hospitals for the criminally insane and penitentiaries where are housed the results of crimes brought about by a government-supported liquor program, is going beyond what any government has a moral (even if it has a legal) right to demand. We could go on at great length with many other examples, but space forbids. You think about them.

The Catholic News Archive has a pretty good catalog of issues of the Catholic Worker. Today I’ll present transcriptions of some of the material on tax resistance from the 1951–70 span.

These include several essays by Ammon Hennacy (these formed the raw material out of which he composed his autobiography, so if you have read that, you’ll see some familiar phrases and stories), as well as other writings by and about conscientious tax resisters, including long works by Ernest Bromley, Eroseanna Robinnson, and Karl Meyer. The articles fill in some interesting details about the evolution of the American war tax resistance movement during this period.

First, Ammon Hennacy, in the January 1951 edition:

Picketing

“How are you going to get people to put up the sword? My son died in Korea. I know you didn’t kill him. God bless you,” said an elderly woman as I was picketing the post office in Phoenix, Dec. 18, in response to Truman’s “emergency” declaration. The woman had seen my big sign which read:

“Put up thy Sword.
He that taketh the Sword
Shall Perish
by the Sword”

Jesus’ words.

On the reverse of this sign was a picture of a pot colored green with a sign on it—Capitalist. Opposite was a red kettle—Communist. Underneath was the caption: “The Pot Calls the Kettle Black.” I carried my old tax refusal sign as a sandwich in front. It read:

75%
of your Income Tax
Goes for War.
I have refused
to pay Income Taxes
for Seven years.

The reverse sign hanging on my back read:

Reject War.
Use Gandhi’s
Weapon of
Non Violent
DIRECT ACTION.

I attended mass at St. Mary’s before picketing and prayed for wisdom during my day which I feared would be more disturbing than my previous marches. In another church that morning a CW priest said mass for the success of my witness for peace. I had notified the City Manager and the tax man that I would picket against the war emergency. Ginny Anderson, whose C.O. husband Rik varityped my leaflet and made the above signs, stood on one corner to hand me extra literature and be my “lookout” for trouble. Byron Bryant, Catholic anarchist, home on Christmas vacation from his duties as professor of English at a western university, stood on the other corner. There was an unusual amount of people going and coming. Ne one advised me to go back to Russia or called me a Communist. As is usual in picketing most people were afraid to be seen taking a leaflet. If one person took a leaflet all others in line took it and if the first one refused so did all the others. Negroes and Mexicans and Indians always took the leaflet and many times a Catholic Worker. My leaflet read as follows:

What’s All The Shooting About?

It’s about men who put money ahead of God. It’s about young men on both sides misled into dying and killing each other. It’s about rationing, inefficiency, dictatorship, inflation, and politicians stealing a little more than usual.

War is what happens when one nation prepares to defend itself against another nation that prepares to defend itself. World War Ⅰ and World War Ⅱ did not end war nor make the world safe for democracy.

Neither will this one.

There just isn’t any sense to war! What can we do about it? If the politicians think one person is important enough to become a soldier, a munition maker, a bond buyer, or an income tax payer, then one person is important enough to

REFUSE to become a soldier,
REFUSE to make munitions,
REFUSE to buy bonds, and to
REFUSE to pay income taxes.

War does not protect you—it will destroy you!

You cannot overcome Communism with bullets. It can be overcome by each person doing what he knows in his heart to be right. The way of Jesus, of St. Francis, of Tolstoy, and of Gandhi teaches us to love our enemy, to establish justice, to abolish exploitation, and to rely upon God rather than on politicians and governments.

If you are a Christian, why not follow Christ? You might as well die for what you believe in as for what you don’t believe in. If you must fight, fight war itself. Don’t be a traitor to humanity!

Wars will cease when men refuse to fight.

(No “Johnny come lately" to the peace movement, I served 2½ years in prison for opposing World War I, 8½ months of it in solitary confinement in Atlanta Penitentiary. And since more than three-fourths of one’s income tax goes for war purposes, I have refused to pay my income tax for more than seven years. Nor did I register for the draft in either world war. I am a Christian Anarchist, a follower of Tolstoy, Thoreau, and Gandhi, and invite your serious consideration of their examples.)

“Extra, extra, all anarchists to be shot at sunrise,” shouted the good-natured news man stationed in front of the post office as I passed by. The one who had led the fight against me in August and later became my friend had left town. When a later edition told of a bank robbery in Tucson he shouted as I passed: [“Extra, extra, Gandhi robs a bank.” (missing from this article, but included in a later reprint —♇)]

A woman looked at my sign and asked if I did not know that Jesus told Peter to sell his clothes and buy a sword. I answered: “yes, but when Peter showed him the sword which he had Jesus answered ‘that is enough,’ and when Peter used this sword to cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest Jesus did not say to cut off the other ear but said ‘put up thy sword. He that taketh the sword shall perish by the sword’.” As the woman walked on she shouted back: “Jesus called for a sword so he could perform a miracle. He never said ‘put up thy sword.’ You better read your Bible.”

Somewhat different was a teen age boy who pointed to an ad of the Marines and said that meant more to him than my sign or my leaflet which he had just read. I told him that if he believed that way—and he was to leave next month—that he should do what he thought was right. He refused to take a CW although he was a Catholic and went to St. Mary’s. I hoped that he would return safely and could then confer with the priest as to the possibilities of being a pacifist Catholic. It was not his fault that he had never heard the pacifist message before. We parted in a friendly spirit.

One gruff fellow asked, “What have you got there?” I answered, “It’s either very good or very bad; depends on how you look at it; better read it and see.” He smiled and went his way reading the leaflet.

A Catholic anarchist woman walked with me for a bit and was going to come after 3 p.m. and take Ginny’s place. While Byron and I went for lunch the Catholic banker whose bank had been robbed spoke to Ginny. Although the CW says “Starve the Bankers and Feed the Poor” he reads the paper and has visited me before on the picket line. Another Catholic anarchist woman came and missed us because of the following incident.

The Cops

We had only brought along 500 leaflets and now at 3 p.m. they were nearly all distributed. Many had stopped with kind words and no one had openly insulted us. Two good natured policemen came up in a squad car and said they were having too many complaints about my picketing. They read my signs and leaflet. I told them that what I was doing was clearly subversive and that the FBI and the tax man had priority over them in my case and they ought to confer with them. One cop did so while the other asked me questions. Meanwhile people crowded around and watched my signs. I saw my tax man as he came near, and an FBI man. The police wanted to know what had been done when I had been arrested for picketing before. I told them that I had been released and had picketed 7 more days without being bothered. They conferred with headquarters and suggested that Ginny and I accompany them to the police station. Here we waited about an hour while detectives and police looked over the signs and leaflet and asked questions. I offered a CW to one police captain but he refused it saying that no Catholic paper could support such unpatriotic actions as mine. I asked him if he knew Father Dunne and he said he did. I advised him to call him up and see what he said about myself and the CW. (Later Fr. Dunne told me that the man had called him.)

Byron had phoned a Catholic attorney, friend of the CW, who spoke to Chief Clair. The latter told us we could go but I had better not picket for I might cause a riot and then charges of disorderly conduct, loitering, or other charges would be proferred against me. I told him that I had been able so far to handle individuals and crowds. He shrugged his shoulders inferring that I would be on my own. I said that I had been on my own all my life and another half hour (it was now 4:30) was not much to worry about. Before I left I told him that I would picket again on March 14^th. He replied, “That is another day.”

We went back and gave away our few remaining leaflets. Postal employees looked out of the windows and saw that the police had not stopped us. (One of the calls had come from an ultra-patriotic postal employee, although another employee to whom I had offered a leaflet early in the morning had refused it and about 2 p.m. had asked for one, and after reading it praised me for my stand.)

Ammon Hennacy, in the June 1951 edition:

Life at Hard Labor

“I don’t wear a label; I’m for all good causes,” replied the young ex-conscientious objector who, passing through Phoenix, had called the local paper to find my address, and had found me this evening as I was caretaker of Jersey cows at the sale of purebreds at the State Fair grounds. Many write to me or come to visit me who are drawn by different phases of my philosophy, so to save time I try to find out if their bias is Catholic Worker, I.W.W., pacifist, anarchist, vegetarian, life on the land, or tax refusal. This slogan of not wearing a label is fine, I told my new friend, for a young person in search of the truth, but at his age of 31 he ought to begin to have ideas that led to some definite belief and action. I admitted that for the average person of bourgeois tendencies to look at the Republican and Democratic parties and to think that wearing their labels was meaningless was a sign of progress. Like the housewife in the days when women did the baking at home who put the initials “T.M.” on the top crust of one pie, meaning “Tis Mince”; and the initials “T.M.” on another pie crust, meaning “Taint Mince,” labels surely do not have any meaning.

The thought behind my friend’s no label attitude seemed to be a desire to approach as many people as possible, on the street, in buses, at dances, etc., and to make friends and influence people by not scaring them with such words as pacifist or anarchist, but to rattle half-truths and half criticisms as a build up for “all good causes” and as a monkey wrench toward the status quo. This is a mass approach; mine has been to get the individual in this mass, if possible, to think. I remember forty years ago when well meaning friends told me that to use the word “Socialist” was defeating my purpose, and that some word such as “Progressive" that did not have such ill omen should be used. My reply then was that whatever word was used to designate a belief that word would always have a bad meaning to those who were being denounced. Today the word Socialist only means collaboration with war and has lost all its class conscious meaning. Even many timid anarchists whom I know prefer the word “Libertarian” for fear they will be called bomb throwers. I go on the principle of never being on the defensive, so when I am called a bomb throwing anarchist I tell the accuser that the government is the biggest bomb thrower with its A and H bombs.

I told my young friend that he could always get a crowd to applaud mild criticism of war and for the lowering of taxes and raising of wages, but that this same crowd would really follow the blazing torch of super demagogues who spoke of “the great native intelligence of the common man,” and who never meant to catch the bird but were adept in the case of putting salt on its tail. I pointed out that spiritual power was the strongest force in the world and that beside it all the two penny political victories did not mean a thing. Too many of us dissipate our energies by being “for all good causes” and never develop or use this spiritual power. And then we wonder why we become tired radicals and why warmongers rule the world. We refuse to use our strongest weapon, but at the ballot box where we are invariably outnumbered a million to one, we choose our weakest weapon.

As I was helping a farmer polish the horns of his cows he said he had heard that I was an educated man and implied wonderment as to my being a day laborer. I explained my plan of working at day work on farms in order that no withholding tax for war should be taken from my pay. He wanted to know more about these ideas and for the next hour he heard the words anarchism and pacifism undiluted by “all good causes” and departed with the current CW and my promise to mail him future copies. In contrast another farmer wanted me to go back to Russia if I didn’t like this country.

The cows for sale were listed in a catalogue with pedigrees and a record of their production of butter fat. The manager of the sale was discussing with one farmer about certain unregistered and non pedigreed cows which are called “grades,” and many times these cows give more and richer milk than the purebred stock. But there is no guarantee that a heifer from such a cow will be a good producer; more than likely a throwback of scrub stock.

Culls

In Albuquerque I worked for two men who specialized in extra fancy chickens. At one place I gathered eggs each hour from a trap nest, and marked the number of the chicken, taken from a leg band, on the egg she had just laid, and also in the record book. Those who did not produce a great number of eggs were thus culled out. “Why feed the culls?” my boss said. Each day a dozen or more hens would die of “blow-outs”; which meant that the very efficient egg producing machine had overstepped itself. The mediocre hens lived longer and did not blow-out. At a dairy in Albuquerque where I worked, my job was to go to any of the eight corrals and in the mud and manure drive the next string of cows to the barn to be milked. Nearly every night a calf would be born in this wet and cold discomfort and my job was to carry it to a warm stall after the milking was done. Very few of these calves, coming from cows that were “grades,” died. Later I worked for a multi-millionaire who had highly priced purebreds. My job was to keep a fire in a stove in the barn at night and to feed these calves egg with specially prepared milk. Yet the death rate among these purebreds made my boss groan. Tuberculosis and Bangs Disease (premature birth of calves) seems also to be more prevalent among the inbred purebreds. Super efficient bankers jump out of windows when red ink instead of black ink records their business schemes. Efficient assembly line workers go berserk and often a supposedly steady bus driver leaves his route and drives right on to Florida to escape his treadmill of efficiency. At its best our system is efficient only in turning out quantity and at its worst it is trying to bomb us to death. Very expensive garden tools these days are held together only by the paint on the handle and are of very inferior design and workmanship.

When I was a social worker in Milwaukee in the thirties we were often derided by well to do Republicans for “coddling the culls” when we helped the poor. And from time to time I have heard radicals who were especially scientific and eugenic minded look upon the ideals of Jesus and Gandhi as perpetuating the life of the unfit and the misfit. Although I helped in the formation of the CW House of Hospitality in Milwaukee in 1937 I will admit that my interest in the CW was limited then to its pacifist and anarchist slant and that I felt this coddling of the bums was not so important. Since, however, my study of Tolstoy and acquaintance with Peter and Dorothy, and my ten years as an actual laborer, rather than a radical theorist with a good job, I have come to view this whole matter in different light. The conversation about grades and purebreds that night and my meeting with the young rattle-brain who was “for all good causes” helped me to clarify my ideas along this line.

In this age of the assembly line, of super-markets and super advertising schemes; and of Service Clubs to put a little holy oil of goodness on this theft, the illusion persists that this is a scientific and efficient age. Yes, we produce, but for what? If somehow we do have bums, poor housing, ill-health, new diseases, and poverty these can only be attended to by Community Funds, Heart, Cancer, and Give a Dime Campaigns; pensions and social security payments by the state. Charity Incorporated has no room for Houses of Hospitality where there is no record of aid given or even the name of the recipient. “They won’t work if you keep on feeding them! They sell the clothing you give them around the corner for booze!” say the well fed parasites who also neither work nor help the poor except perhaps in a very dim and distant contribution to a fund, much of which goes for overhead. The idea of these professional do-gooders is to “give coals and treacle” to the poor, as Shaw said, and to keep them out of sight in order that the rich may not be reminded of the filth and degradation which is the foundation of their wealth. Good social workers are told not to “become emotionally involved” with their clients. Again, the mechanistic approach.

The CW breaks through all this sham. Instead of living in fine apartments to which we can repair after witnessing the other side of the tracks, we who accept Lady Poverty have given up worldly goods, insurance, and much of our privacy. This cull in the breadline; this drunk or prostitute; this maladjusted and perhaps lazy man—all of these may not be improved a bit by our help. Ours is not a success story; the Way of the Cross was also a failure. He at least might have led a rebellion against the Roman State instead of dying on the Cross and forgiving His enemies.

Where are we to look for those who are going to bear the Cross today? It is true that St. Francis, Tolstoy, Malatesta, Kropotkin and Gandhi left their inheritance and choosing voluntary poverty were able to accomplish much. We also print the word and deliver the lecture to the purebreds. We make no mistake in thinking that because a man is ragged that he is holy, for if he is avaricious he is as much a slave to money as is the rich man. (My banker friend Brophy jokingly told me that he would have to write a defense of the rich for the CW. I told him that he would end up contradicting himself and that the best defense of the rich could be obtained by giving a couple of drinks to a poor man on the street.) The Old Pioneer [Lin Orme, Jr.] tells of stopping at a stand in the desert recently and being charged 15¢ for a soft drink. “This is 300% profit for you” he told the proprietor. “I’m not in business for my health” said this greedy and seedy defender of the capitalist system. The Old Pioneer also tells of 25¢ being charged for one common needle in the old days when everything coming into Phoenix had to be hauled from Maricopa Wells station beyond South Mountain. “The freight is what costs” was the alibi of the greedy merchant. Neither do we consider the product of the purebreds. Tommy Manville, the dear old DAR ladies, the useless royalty of Europe, and our own inbred Duponts and intellectuals who have nearly without exception prostituted their talents toward the making of bombs. There is some hope that among the bums we may find a John the Baptist to carry on the work when we have gone, but there is little hope from politicians whose integrity has already been purchased and from the super educated to whom a doctors degree, a deep freeze and a television set mean more than fighting for a lost cause.

How will we then come to a sensible way of life? Without war work we would have a terrible depression. Hardly a person but whom will gladly earn this blood money! Hardly a person but whom will pay taxes for more bombs! The rich will not give up their riches and the poor will not give up their pensions; (the young will not help the aged; preparing to “keep up with the Jones’.”) The froth at the top has little right to scorn the scum at the bottom; meanwhile we who do the work of the world support them both. The Old Pioneer remarked recently that Jefferson’s plan of not having great wealth inherited was the right idea. This reminds me of the old Russian proverb: “Do not lay up your money for your son, for if he is any good he can make his own money; and if he is not any good he will lose it.” So in our writing, our picketing, our speaking, our help to the poor in Houses of Hospitality, we must need show our sincerity by our voluntary poverty. No one would think of bribing us for by our lives we have established the fact that we need nothing. We need not fritter our time by building up “all good causes,” which accept the tyranny of the state. When they are ready for it the rich, the bourgeois intellectual, the bum, and even the politician may have an awakening of conscience because of the uncompromising seeds of Christian Anarchism which we are sowing. To all of these we make our appeal and from all it is not impossible to gain a few adherents for that time “when each shall give according to his ability and receive according to his need.” For what does all our bookkeeping mean but a denial of this ideal?

Johnny Olson came back from a sojourn in Texas. In a splurge of affluence he bought five mouse traps and set them around our house. He caught the whole population which consisted of three mice. While I as a pacifist vegetarian would not cause the death of Brother Mouse yet as an anarchist I have no right to deny Johnny the right to catch them… The old mules, belonging to a neighbor, which I have used for plowing the garden these five years are now muleburger. They were not killed in time for the new government regulation which allows equine meat in weiners.

My friend Joe Craigmyle, nonregistrant, and one-cylinder vegetarian and anarchist, runs a fruit stand and at times I have helped him pick oranges and grapefruit in groves where he has purchased the crop. Even in the month of May when the new fruit is on the trees the last year’s crop is still sweet and juicy. As with apples the fewer fruit on the tree the larger. There is not generally time to thin out the fruit but many drop off before maturity. An orange or grapefruit may look fine but if it is light in weight it is pithy and is discarded right there at the tree. The load is graded as to size when we return to the stand. Coming home from work the other night in Joe’s truck we were discussing the idea of responsibility and of my reference in a recent CW article to the woman who called on every one else to remove the dead cat from the road. I remarked that I had seen a dead cat on the lateral that Sunday morning but being in a hurry to catch a bus did not practice my anarchist idea of responsibility in removing it. However, in the evening upon my return it was still there despite hundreds of cars and dozens of people on the road that day, so I took care of it. Just then we both saw to the right of us a two-by-four with four spikes sticking up. I said that this would soon give someone some trouble. By that time we were a quarter of a mile beyond it. “I’ll back up and you can throw it in the ditch,” said Joe. In my mind, then, Joe, who has not been much of a man of action, rose from a one-cylinder to a two-cylinder anarchist.

Molokons

Recently I went to the federal court as a young Molokon who lives a few miles down the lateral had been out on $5,000 bail for refusing to report to the army. Dozens of other young Molokons in the vicinity had been given CO status. Whether the draft board lost his CO questionnaire or thought they ought to get hardboiled I do not know. I had phoned a local lawyer who had handled Craigmyle’s refusal to register case and he promised to come to court but did not do so. His excuse being that he couldn’t do anything about it. Judge Ling set Oct. 7^th as date for a trial and the Molokon will get a lawyer from Los Angeles. The Old Pioneer tells of in 1917 when he went to the court commissioner with about fifteen Molokons who had refused to register. Two of them worked for him and he arranged for bail. They asked him if they could sing and pray. The Old Pioneer doubted if they could but asked the commissioner about it. “Hell no, this is a court,” was the answer. “You’d better let them sing and pray and not look foolish for they’re going to do it whether you give permission or not,” said the Old Pioneer to the commissioner. So they sang and prayed. Now they register and do not sing or pray in court.

Today, May 15^th, I received a notice I owe $2.15 interest and penalty on my $192 tax bill for 1951 and unless paid within ten days my property and wages will be attached. This is an old run-a-round and I am not worrying. Today I ate the first Irish potatoes this year from our garden. The persimmon tree which the Old Pioneer’s daughter-in-law gave me last winter now bears fruit. Watermelon, eggplant, tomatoes, squash, peppers and onions are doing fine. I am irrigating tonight and soon will come irrigating maize.

An excerpt from “Poverty is to Care and Not to Care” by Dorothy Day, from the April 1953 issue:

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.

All this is by way of saying that poverty is no longer voluntary, no longer a counsel, but something which is laid upon us by necessity.

Ammon Hennacy, in the October 1953 issue:

Hiroshima Fast

“I got a letter from one of my sons in Korea this morning. My three other boys will go to jail before they go to another foolish war. God bless you for your sign about war; that’s just what it is: murder,” said a woman to me as I was on my 8-day picketing and fasting. She referred to my sign:

DRAW THE LINE AT MURDER
REFUSE TO GO TO WAR.

In contrast a man went by with his wife and said: “Drop dead!”

“Can’t do it, Mister,” I replied.

Rik had done a beautiful job on my leaflet, printed in the July/Aug. CW, on blue paper. I was nearly out of Feb. CW’s containing my tax statement so did not give out any unless people asked for them.

Now for the first time in my fasting I went to Mass and Communion each morning. I had worked until after dark for several nights in order to finish work that I had planned, and up until Wednesday noon. I had eaten my last full meal Tuesday noon and only toast bread until I commenced my fast at 4 p.m. Wednesday. I had written the following note, enclosing my blue leaflet, to 165 of the clergy in and around Phoenix. And as usual I had notified the police, the FBI, and the tax man, of my picketing, telling them that what I was doing was clearly subversive, but no worse than it ever was. “Please pray for the success of my fasting and picketing in this the 10^th year of my open refusal to pay income taxes for war, if you can in conscience do so. My attitude may appear too radical but I feel that something as radical as the Sermon on the Mount is needed in this wicked world. I too believe in a personal religion but if in matters of social concern I act just as unbelievers act, then I am a fraud. If you have time stop and say hello to me as I fast and picket in front of the old YMCA.”

I had sent my leaflet air mail to the Mayor of Hiroshima and to Manalil Gandhi in Phoenix, South Africa. I received but one answer which was from a leading Methodist minister, who did not agree with my ideas but who praised my stand. I knew beforehand of the approval of the half dozen priests who appreciated the CW. As usual the Associated Press sent a favorable factual message on the wire about my activities and the local radios reported it each day, one announcer even reading my entire leaflet. But the local dailies, per their policy, refused to “dignify” themselves by mentioning my name.

I started the fast weighing 142 pounds. The scales also poured forth a slip with the dubious information that read, “Don’t always follow the line of least resistance.” The first day I lost 2 pounds and the second day which was exceptionally hot I lost 5 pounds. I slept that night for 14 hours and awoke refreshed.

One friend who was an usher in a Catholic Church and also a veteran, had always been cordial to the CW, but he felt that the plan of the American Legion to take the profit out of war and make the big shots who make war go to war was a better method than my tax refusal and picketing. I told him that I was winning my battle against the government each day and while this was only a step forward, his way was no more than conversation about it. I said that this method stood as much a chance of succeeding as a butcher putting vegetarian signs in his window. That those who make money and fame out of war would never stop. It was up to us to refuse to take part in war.

Fasting

Now on the third day I was weak but never a bit hungry. Several people on park benches nearby told me of a young man who had gone on a 62 day fast. They said he ate his lunch at the park. That day I introduced myself to him and found he had suffered from arthritis, stomach ulcers and chronic nightmare. He went to my friend Dr. Shelton in San Antonio and after 40 days of nothing but water to drink, all of the accumulated toxic poisons had been washed out of his body and he commenced to get stronger. He was entirely cured at the end of 62 days. Of the 25,000 people taking fasts there in 30 years only one person had endured a longer fast; that being 68 days. A priest in Phoenix had taken a 30 day fast there and had been cured. My friend had lost 57 pounds but had gained it all back again. I visited with him each noon and envied his vegetarian diet of pears and grapes. He had been raised a Catholic but believed in no religion at present. He was interested in my ideas and felt he would never go to war but he did not feel that it was his job to propagandize about it.

Other friends I met told me of a man in Phoenix whom I knew who had been given up by the doctors because of tuberculosis of the kidneys. He had read in some book that in ancient Egypt those with such trouble had laid in the hot sands. Egypt was too far away so he came to Arizona and for 6 months literally lived in the sand. He was entirely cured. He is a strict vegetarian these past 20 years and in good health.

The Mormon wife of a friend of mine told me of her grandfather who in the old days had several wives. At the age of 86 he discovered that he had diabetes. He fasted 68 days at home and cured himself and lived 9 more years in good health. But Mormons are used to disciplining themselves so his fast was not as difficult for him as it would be for the regular flabby American.

My other sign read: “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” HIROSHIMA WAS A-BOMBED AUGUST 6. 1945, JUST 8 YEARS AGO TODAY. As penance I am Fasting these 8 days IN MEMORIAM.

This was enclosed with a black border. The six story Veteran’s Bureau was across the street and many men in uniform went by. One soldier asked me what kind of lies I was peddling. I told him I was peddling no lies, but the right side of a very important question; that he had better read it and see what it was all about. He read it as he walked along. Another soldier did the same. Generally soldiers refuse to take the leaflet or tear it up.

Near quitting time on the next to last day a young fellow whose appearance marked him as of the nervous intellectual type, and not a rowdy, stopped and asked me if this was my sign that I was carrying. I told him that it was. He said that I had better call the police for he was going to take the sign and tear it up and dance on it for no Communist could carry such a sign in his town. I told him that I was not a Communist; that I was a Catholic and an anarchist. He replied that he was a Catholic. I asked him what parish he belonged to and it was mine also. I inquired if he had been at mass the last Sunday and if he noticed me selling CW’s in front of the church. He had been to last mass and had not noticed me. I told him that if he had looked closer he would have noticed a candle burning before the Blessed Mother for the success of my intention in this picketing and fasting. He didn’t believe it. I asked his name and he told me but would not give me his address. I said I did not believe in the police and if he got any pleasure out of tearing signs he could do so. He took them and tore them off the standard and danced on them there on the sidewalk. He refused to take a copy of my leaflet or of the CW, muttering “Communist, Communist.” I advised him to see our parish priest and get straight on the matter of the CW. He promised to do so. I then called the priest and told him of what had just happened. He did not remember the name of my patriotic friend.

I wanted to see the AP man on another matter so went to the newspaper office. Here I saw my friend with my signs telling a reporter about the Communist he had found. I recognized the reporter from pictures I had seen of him but I had never met him. The reporter said that I was not a Communist for they all knew of my picketing activities for years. The patriotic Catholic said he was a veteran from Korea and repeated that no one could carry such signs in his town. The reporter said he was a veteran of two wars and he had fought for just such things as the freedom of Hennacy to carry his signs and picket; that if the young man did not like my signs he could do as the pickets in front of the White House in the Rosenberg case did: get other signs and picket the pickets. The reporter also said that I was standing up for the freedom which was true Americanism, and although he disagreed with my ideas, that the patriotic young man was acting like a Communist or a Fascist in denying me freedom. He picked up the signs saying, “Here Hennacy take your signs; they are yours, not his.” The young man said he would take them away from me. I replied that I was too tired carrying them anyway and would simply give out my leaflets the next day as Rik was away and I had no cardboard to make new signs. The young man said he would come down next day and tear up any signs that I had. The reporter told him that he was breaking the law and he was lucky he opposed such a person as Hennacy who would not take him to court. I left him still arguing with the reporter. The AP carried this story and it was reported over the radio. Some of the newspaper men wanted me to prefer charges against my assailant to make a more exciting story. I refused to do so, explaining my Gandhian principle of non-violent resistance to evil and that as an anarchist I could take no recourse to law under any circumstances. The next day the young man did not show up. I phoned my priest and he had not come around to ask about the CW.

To Maryfarm

All during my picketing the employees of the tax office, including the three Catholic tax men whose job it had been to get my tax money, were cordial. There was not a mean look from anyone in that office. This was the first time this had happened. Several friends came and walked around the line with me. Only about a dozen people tore up my leaflet. Many stopped and cordially approved of my picketing. About half a dozen grunted disapproval. There was not as much traffic as there had been other years at the postoffice. I had not met the new head of the tax office so as I finished my fast I introduced myself to Col. Wood and expressed my appreciation of the cordial attitude of his coworkers toward my picketing. He asked me the difference between a Communist and an Anarchist and seemed to understand my explanation.

Ginny and her boys came up and broke the fast with me around 3:30 on the last day as we all drank juices at the juice bar. I left for New York on the 4 p.m. bus. I had bought more fruit than I could eat but I nibbled at it on the way. In Prescott, I phoned the former head of the tax bureau in Phoenix and talked to his wife, Mrs. Stuart, Democratic National Committeewoman. They own the Prescott “Courier.” She was pleasant as usual and told me that they had a story on my fast that day. Soon I was with Platt and Barbara Cline in Flagstaff and now I could eat mashed potatoes and other soft food. Platt made a recording of my experiences. He had a fine Third Mesa basket which I took to New York for Dorothy. The next evening I spent with Hopi friends in Winslow and by Saturday I was visiting with Msgr. Garcia in Albuquerque and my good friend Rev. Soker of St. Paul’s Lutheran Church there. Reagans had moved to Arkansas and the letter I had sent to Al and Catherine Reser must have gone astray or they had moved, for I couldn’t find them. By Sunday morning I was in Sante Fe welcomed by Peter and Florence van Dresser. They had a meeting for me that afternoon. I did not have time to go to El Rito to see their Organic House heated by solar heat and with windmill for power. I will stop there on my way back when I visit my daughter Carmen. Carmen is with her sister Sharon for a retreat at Mt. Shasta. I visited the nearby Trappist monastery and spoke to two monks who are CW fans and had lunch with the nursing sisters where I had spoken last year.

As I left Tuesday evening I was pleased to see a good factual writeup on the front page of the daily New Mexican. This paper goes to nearby Los Alamos, so perhaps for the first time those who make the bomb could learn of opposition to it. A social worker told me that there were more maladjusted children from the homes of Los Alamos workers than from any other strata of people from the state. The gloom of this blood money thus defiles the next generation. A few days with my family in Cleveland and I arrived at Maryfarm, with Father Casey. I understood more this year than last and read some Catholic literature that I should have read long ago. It is too soon to evaluate the effect of this spiritual retreat upon me. Just now I am at Dave Dellinger’s at Glen Gardner, N.J., proof-reading my autobiography.

Some excerpts from an Ammon Hennacy article in the April 1954 edition:

…Wally Nelson came to take me to Sharonville to spend the night with tax-refusers Ernest and Marion Bromley. We disagree on my frankness to the authorities but we have the same aim.

The afternoon and night was most pleasant as I became acquainted with Fred Schulder, age 79, who had written in the anarchist paper Liberty in the 1880’s before I was born. He is not religious in the accepted sense, but takes the CW. His son Horace Champney took me to Brookville to an area meeting of Peacemakers where Ralph Templin, Clay Marks, and others whom I knew held forth in a discussion about tax refusal and the picketing which they would do in Cincinnati this March.

Some excerpts from an Ammon Hennacy article in the May 1954 edition:

Max Sandin, old time tax refuser, and one of we seven veterans of jails in World War Ⅰ who also refused to register in World War Ⅱ renewed old time memories with me.

Jim Ward had asked me in Chicago what live meant to me now that I was a Catholic and I had listed the seven things which seemed to me now in 1954 the most important, and I talked this over with Father Casey. Here they are: (1) Voluntary poverty. (2) The Sermon on the Mount. (3) Pacifism, with its absolutist meaning as evidenced in tax refusal. (4) The Mass. (5) To Work and not be a parasite. (6) Anarchism. (7) Vegetarianism, which includes no tobacco, alcohol or medicine. This is for myself and not meant for others. Each has to go at his own speed and in his own way.

We drove to Grasston to see old man Paul Marquardt and found him reading his Bible. He told us of the time when his children had been sent home from school with a card telling the family to save fat for the war. Marquardt immediately withdrew the children from the school saying that each morning he prayed “give us this day our daily bread,” and he was not going to save bread or fat or anything for a war. He told also of the priest in nearby Pine City, who, in instructing his confirmation class said, “Have faith like the Marquardts.” To have this honor in your home town is indeed an honor.

From the March 1956 edition:

Individual Income Tax: War’s Chief Supporter.

Of the income of the Federal Government 48% comes from individual income taxes which we pay; 30% comes from corporation taxes; 15% comes from excise taxes; and 7% other sources

By Ernest Bromley

The Administration’s proposed budget, recently announced, asks for a billion dollar increase for “new weapons of unprecedented strategic and tactical importance” in order to give this nation “the greatest military power in its peacetime history.” Diagrams of the proposed income and expenditures emphasize two things: (1) The chief source of federal revenue is the individual income tax, (2) The chief national expenditure is military (including bomb stockpiling and new terror weapons). Both things have been true for these eighteen years, but one is always struck anew with each announcement of them.

So minute a portion of the tax money is being spent for any socially acceptable activity that it seems to be only an illusion to consider that one’s Federal taxes go to anything constructive. (Actually, the only way one can support the better enterprises is to bypass the Internal Revenue Bureau completely and find ways to contribute to these causes directly.)

The war build-up touches the individual much more directly and intimately at the income tax point than it does anywhere else. Almost two-thirds of every tax dollar goes to build H-Bombs, Guided Missiles, Germ Warfare, Conscript Armies, etc.—thirty-five times as much as for schools, roads, and health combined. (Can there be any doubt about what the Federal government’s major activity has come to be?) It is almost unthinkable that more people (especially more pacifists) have not declined to bolster this monstrous drive to destruction; that they have not at this major point stopped the flow of their funds through the book-keeping which takes most of what they pay and channels it into what they abhor; that they have not by-passed the present tax set-up and given their valuable, held-back funds to something worthy of support. Will we wake up too late?

The first, and major, encumbrance to keeping one’s tax money and using it for something decent is the withholding set-up. Trying to be a tax refuser in a withholding job is a good deal like being a pacifist in the army. In each case you have already placed yourself well within the system; and in each case the very first step is to take yourself out of the system. The real, creative possibilities on these fronts begin to open up only after this step of separation has been taken. The fact that such separations are difficult to carry out makes them no less imperative. Because the withholding situation presents problems, is there no advice that can be given to the average working person about the business of non-cooperating with income tax payments? I would advise: Stop paying income taxes (whether you file a form to this effect or not).

For some people this will, of course, mean that they will have to leave their present jobs and take employment that is not affected by withholding. Here we sometimes tend to lose sight of the fact that there is probably no type of socially useful work (individual or organizational) being done under the withholding tax set-up which cannot also be done outside it. And, too, this raises the important question of what social usefulness really is. Can “socially useful” firms or organizations remain socially useful to any real degree when their one rigid requirement is that the first portion of a worker’s earnings be set aside for war? Can a “socially useful” person remain socially useful in his job to any real degree when, in order to do with one hand the work of building a better society, he has first to do with the other hand the work of destroying it (like a church constructing a brothel)? Conscientious workers in such employment may reason after a while, as some have, that the effect of this operation is that they are working in a munitions factory part of the time.

Men go to prison rather than join the armed forces and support conscription. Should not the people with these principles (especially the people not subject to any draft) face the imperative of sacrificing a little economic security (or convenience), especially when not facing it means continuing to pay substantial sums of money for terrifying weapons and conscript armies?

---

Ernest Bromley lives in Sharonville, Ohio, with his wife, Marian and family. He keeps his earnings below the amount where any tax has to be paid. Around 1942 he refused, when a Methodist minister in North Carolina, to purchase an automobile tag (not a license), for his car and did three months in jail. His wife worked for the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the leading pacifist group in this country, and quit her job rather than pay the withholding tax for war which this and all other peace organizations take from their employees. He has been head of the tax refusal committee of Peacemakers. He supplements his income by an apiary in his garden. I have visited there several times and respect the effort which he and his wife are making to live up to their ideals. They live a few miles from the Grail farm at Loveland, Ohio. The Jehovah Witnesses and the Catholic Worker are two groups where all work for their keep and no salaries—and no taxes—are paid. This basis of voluntary poverty could be approximated by others if they wished to make the necessary adjustment between faith and works and try to live in community.—A.H.

Excerpts from an article by Ammon Hennacy in the March 1956 issue:

For the first time since 1943 when the withholding tax began I have not earned enough money to owe the tax man anything. I only made $310 lecturing and as my Autobiography is not copyrighted and I want no royalties from it, the sales go to pay for the printing and whatever is left over will go to the CW. There is no status [sic] of limitations on income taxes so I owe for 12 years. I told the tax man that I would not be foolish enough to tell him where I was going to lecture so he could be there and get the money. There is practically nothing that I have to buy as all of us here at the CW work for our keep. However, if I was to purchase anything in a store and give the cashier a $5 bill for a dollar purchase the tax man, if he were present, could garnishee the change from the cashier right then without any legal proceeding.

In this idea of tax refusal there are ways by which pacifists have to act according to their web of circumstances. Some, like Ernest Bromley, limit their earnings to the amount they are allowed because of dependents and have no tax to pay. Others like Rev. George Hauser, because of being ordained in the clergy, do not have a withholding tax taken from their pay, but at the end of the year make a statement of their earnings. Then the amount of tax is taken by garnishee from the pay with added penalties. There are others who have an income from securities and do not work for wages and who keep their money in a bank where the tax man comes and gets it.

There are millions of people who dislike paying taxes and who may write a letter to the government about it, but they pay. There are others like Governor Lee of Utah who put a certain amount of the tax due which comes from income other than wages in a bank and dare the tax man to sue to get it. But the government always will evade a moral issue, so it is likely that the Governor’s money will be taken the same as others who keep money in banks.

I plan to picket the tax man here in New York City for one day, Friday, April 13^th, and then fast and picket the 11 days from Aug. 6^th through the 16^th in penance for the bomb we dropped at Hiroshima 11 years ago. The T men have interrogated me and what they want to do about my tax arrears is up to them. With more H bomb tests scheduled for the spring by politicians and militarists it is increasingly the responsibility of the individual pacifist to think and to act about being a part of this terrible destruction planned by those who will soon be asking for votes because they have “kept us out of war.”

An excerpt from an Ammon Hennacy article in the May 1956 issue:

The coming atomic tests now scheduled for May 8 and the air raid drill for July 20 are a challenge to all Christians. We intend to demonstrate against this “pinch of incense on the altar to Caesar.” This with our non payment of income taxes for war and a refusal to be a part of the war system is positive evidence that we are trying to understand and practice the Sermon on the Mount.

The argument that the idealist hears from the opportunist is that we are not practical. I submit that our program of the one-man-revolution is the most practical of all. Others who believe in bullets and ballots must gain a majority before they can begin to practice their beliefs and thus postpone indefinitely anything but conversation about their views. We do not need to wait upon others for we have seceded about 90% from this exploitative system and are already practicing our ideals.

An editorial from Dorothy Day the following month reflected on the hydrogen bomb test among other things, and included this note:

Those who can take such stringent courses as tax refusal can give their services rather than be put on payrolls and beg their way to supply their daily needs if they can find agencies willing to work with them on these terms. Or they can embrace voluntary poverty and manual labor as a life of penance and mortification.

The harvest is great and the laborers are few. No fear of unemployment in this field.

An unsigned book review in the April 1957 issue included this:

These publications [Thomas Merton’s The Silent Life and Basic Principles of Monastic Spirituality] will be of special interest to novices in the religious life or those contemplating such a move but laymen who read them should keep in mind that while there is much contained in them from which any Christian can benefit still the “techniques” of attaining union with God proper to the monk are not always the same for those “in the world.” Anyone who has lived under the Benedictine rule, and all the monastic orders of the Western world have felt the impact of Benedict’s spirit and legislation, knows the position of the concept of obedience in his thought. It is just about the most important single element and no one can be a good monk unless he is willing to give up his own will and like Jesus become “obedient unto death,” and the whole monastic observance is organized to serve this end. But the layman, living as he does most often in a society where “the prince of this world” and his spirit prevail, has the duty to cultivate, rather, the virtue of rebellion in order to be obedient to God. It is in rebellion too that we can imitate St. Benedict who fled the corrupt Roman society of his day, whose only concern was “to please God alone.” The monastic life is a judgement on the life of the “world” and in its light the “world” stands condemned. In this way the monk practices the virtue of rebellion. For those in the “world” there must be rebellion also if they are not to be counted “of it.” They must rebel against materialism by embracing voluntary poverty and giving all they possess over and above the absolute necessities to those who have not the necessities, they must rebel against war and its causes by conscientious objection and tax refusal, they must combat that selfish middle class individualism and fear of giving of self by embracing community in one form or another. Rebellion is the first step in any attempt at conforming to Christ; it begins at baptism when the neophyte formally renounces Satan—et omnibus operibus ejus.

More from Ammon Hennacy, in the December 1957 issue:

Richard Fichter, whose article appears in this issue, had been dismissed from the Methodist ministry in Pennsylvania because of his energetic anti-war and tax refusal stand. I had never met him but he had bought several of my books and distributed the CW and had attended various picketing demonstrations. He and his wife have three small children and live on a farm with twenty cows to attend to. All radicals have to make the decision when to follow Caesar and when to follow Christ. 75,000 followers of Gandhi went to prison and someone besides the British government took care of their families. Many bourgeois minded pacifists thought it was wrong for a CO to go to CPS camp or prison and leave a family behind. Richard wrote to many papers about the evils of atomic war and little attention was paid to his views. So one Sunday he came to New York City and in the midst of a nation wide broadcast on television he jumped to the stage and shouted his message. He thought that this would gain attention and the papers would print his views in full. Instead he was locked up in Bellevue for mental observation. I visited him there and met his wife and brother and two Methodist ministers who were his friends. Later his brother and Parents came to visit us at the CW from their home in Ohio. When the government comes to a pacifist and says you must register for the draft, pay taxes for war, sign a loyalty oath, or when a Congressional Committee wants you to tell on others, then if you do not follow the best you know and refuse absolutely, you are following less than you know and will live to regret your timidity. But to leave farm and family to try to tell your message to those who do not want to hear it is not wise and does not make a witness with the dignity which no doubt inspired Richard in the lives of Thoreau and Gandhi. A radical who has faith knows like Thoreau that “one on the side of God is a majority.” And when his neighbors think he is queer and out of step he can reply like Thoreau that he “is listening to a different drummer.” He is not frustrated if all are against him. He does not need the applause of the multitude for he will be content when “two or three are gathered together.”

Ammon Hennacy, in the March 1958 issue:

Tax Refusal

Leland Olds of Yellow Springs, Ohio has refused to pay income taxes and as a result his house worth $9,000 has been sold by the government for the less than $200 taxes due. He can regain the property within a year by paying the tax with interest. This action, together with the sale of a car belonging to Walter Gormly and of Arthur Emery of Iowa, are the only cases I know of where the government has taken property of tax refusers. At times they have garnisheed wages and taken money from bank accounts. They got $5 from a farmer I was working for in Arizona who paid it out of his own pocket rather than take it from my wage, and the tax man also took my picketing sign saying he would sell it to the highest bidder. I never heard of anyone buying it. I still owe taxes for 12 years and will picket the tax office here on Aug. 6 for 13 days unless I am in jail on the air raid drill. Then I would fast in jail.

Karl Meyer, in the April 1960 issue:

Stepping Up the Agitation

Dear Bob or Dorothy or whoever is holding things down there while we are all out making angry and urgent faces at the giants of the impersonalist order.

I was very encouraged to receive the March issue and to read your letter to the California legislature, even as I was preparing to step up the agitation in support [of] Rose Robinson and tax refusal.

On March 10 I began to hand out a new leaflet outside the Federal Building which has been the focus of our protest. After outlining developments in the case. I wrote, “There are some of us who believe, as she does, that it is wrong to pay taxes for war. We have refused as she refused, to cooperate with the Internal Revenue Service in the collection of taxes. And, beyond this, we encourage everyone to do the same. If she deserves to be in prison we deserve to be there too. Therefore I ask from the judge, the United States Attorney’s office, the Internal Revenue Service and all taxpayers and supporters of military preparations, a share in the judgment against her. We have said very simply that your preparations for nuclear war, and therefore your war taxation, are criminal beyond any measure of crime that man has known before. And you have said that our dissent from the idea and action of military preparedness is criminal. The question of which is right is urgent for the future of all men. We have shown a readiness to ratify the truth of our conviction at the risk of imprisonment and hardship. The integrity of justice asks either that Rose Robinson be released, or that all who share her stand be imprisoned with her. That is why I ask the officials and the people for a decision in my case consistent with their decision in hers. How can one person be imprisoned for taking a stand, while others who take the same stand and, what is more, advocate and promote it in the marketplace are left free? I ask the officials and the people involved to release Rose Robinson, but if they will not do that, I ask them to prosecute me for refusing to cooperate with Internal Revenue Service and for advocating that all people do the same.”

The third person who came out and took this leaflet was Judge Robson. I had already mailed him a copy with a covering letter in which I said, “…By presenting this nuclear issue as an issue of imprisonment and freedom, we approach by an analogy the core of what it really is: that is, an issue of life and death for all of us… I hope therefore that you will not regard this leaflet distribution and this request for a share in the judgment against Rose Robinson as something impertinent, but as an attempt to enunciate forcefully the terms of a public discussion of a crucial issue, as well as to bear witness to a very strong conviction that it is wrong to participate in modern war in any way.”

We encouraged Rose by our vigil, visits and letters. In court she thanked us for that. I feel responsible to every one man insurrection to make it a two-man insurrection, so that it may become a three-man insurrection and finally a revolution of enough men.

It is at the critical moment when we recognize our responsibility to one another that we realize our responsibility to mankind and to God. That is what Jesus told us. We see war coming on, bearing down on us, a visible monument to an immensity of sin. Our voices have not reflected the horror we have seen. Our voices have not challenged the supremacy of crime in the actions of men. We were glad enough if a government preparing for World War Ⅲ, was yet benevolent in this decade until war comes, glad enough if our protest could be free from suffering. We are still accomplices because we have whispered at the moment when we should have shouted. We ought to throw up the challenge of Tolstoi and Thoreau, to keep all just men in jail or give up war and slavery.

Here we are making faces at the giants of the impersonalist order, but what we do not forget is that a face turned in urgent desperation to them is a face turned in hope to God. Our work is primarily a prayer.

Early last week two men were standing on the step of the Federal Building watching me as I passed my leaflets and commenting to each other. I recognized one of them. It was deputy U.S. Marshal Wheeler, the man who put the chains on me last summer at Mead, Nebraska. I stepped up to him and said, “Hello. Mr. Wheeler. Will you take a leaflet?” “Yes, Karl,” he said, “I’ll take that. I see that you are still here passing them out.” And so I was, and I realized that the children of this world are too wise to be consistent. Last summer he put me in chains for standing on a grass covered knoll near a missile base. Last month they gave Rose Robinson twelve long months and a long day. Who can say what they will do tomorrow when I walk up the steps and into the building and have a try at handing the leaflet to taxpayers lined up outside the Federal Internal Revenue office.

In Christ,
Karl Meyer
Chicago Catholic Worker

An announcement in the July 1960 issue:

Prayer, Fasting, and Tax Refusal

Ammon Hennacy will picket the office of Internal Revenue at Varick and West Houston Streets in New York City from August 6^th through the 20^th and will fast at this time as a penance for our dropping the bomb at Hiroshima, August 6, 1945, and for our continued atomic activities. He has openly refused to pay income taxes during 12 years while working in the fields in the Southwest, or while lecturing, as 83% of the income tax goes for war. He will picket from 9 to 5 on weekdays. Readers in New York are invited to keep him company, and anyone sympathetic can help by praying and fasting according to his capacity.

The same issue also included an article from Eroseanna Robinson, borrowed from The Peacemaker:

Rose Robinson Tells of Her Arrest and Prison Experiences

It was January 26^th, a cold grey Tuesday, and I got off the city bus in a hurry because I was late for work. My arms were straining with the packages I’d bought downtown. They were things for the Play Club mostly, and food. I hadn’t had any lunch, except a couple of cashews and some fudge nibbled at on the bus. I was quick-stepping toward Bethlehem Community Center compelled by two nagging realizations. I was late and I was hungry. I had a conference with my supervisor set for two o’clock. It was already ten after. Well, I’d just have to talk and eat at the same time. I stopped, late as I was, at the corner store and bought some buttermilk. Actually, I already had an abundance of food — vegetable soup, swiss cheese sandwich and what not. But for a change, I had a little extra money and for the rest of that year, certainly, I was going to be earning a little more than usual. For the first time in my seven years of tax refusal, I wouldn’t have to budget so closely. Eating was as good a way as any to celebrate. I was vexed with myself to be so busy. First the conference. Then group preparation. Then the Play Club children’s time. I’d have to do a lot of phoning after that for the parents meeting that night. I took the hall steps quickly when I got inside the building and rushed into the front office, I said “Hi” to the secretary. She had a peculiar look on her face. My supervisor and the girl workers were also in the office. I spoke to them but everybody kept looking at me strangely and nobody said anything. “What’s wrong with all of you?” I asked. “I’m not that late. It’s only 2:15.” Then the secretary said, “Rose, there’s somebody to see you.” She was nodding across the hall toward the library. Somebody to see me. I didn’t want to see anybody with all I had to do. I wanted to put down my arm-racking bundles and have my conference and eat. The fact is that I never had that conference and I didn’t eat for 115 days because a short, stocky, authoritative man in a grey uniform came toward me out of the library. Behind him was a man I knew. He’d come to my home several times and to Bethlehem Center only a week before. He was Mr. D.L. Turner, deputy collector for the Internal Revenue Service. The first man said, “Erozee-yanna Robinson?” and I said correctly “Eroseanna,” and he snapped his right hand open sidewise showing his badge. “I have a warrant for your arrest," he said. “Come with me.” For eight months the government, through its agents, had hammered link upon link several visits by the deputy collector, registered letters, a subpoena, a certified court order, telephone calls, throughout, to my home and work, a call to my sister, Adrienne, at her work, a visit to my job — until at last, they had reached the handcuff-end of the chain, putting my wrists into them so tightly that they cut, and lugging my body, in deliberately ungainly fashion, away to jail.

My body was lugged and dragged around many times after that because I refused to walk to jail or trial or any place authorized by the courts. And throughout the whole of my incarceration, the practices upon which government power pivots came into sharp focus. One is the coercion of the individual to unquestioningly submit to authority imposed by the government, the other is the deliberate misrepresentation of any individual who might take exception to such authority. This whole pattern is disguised as the democratic process’ and, in recent years, has frequently been labeled ‘freedom’ and ‘truth’. Actually, respect for the right of the individual to examine policies of government — which certainly affect us all — is a myth. And taking exception to policy, as in my own case — even though that exception be a denouncement of violence, waste, psychological intimidation, misrepresentation of truth, and preparation for wholesale destruction — can constitute a felony.

When the individual is willing to be fodder for such an organ, it is partly out of desire for reward but largely to escape punishment. And submission to such authority is no guarantee of either. So, when the deputy marshal told me he was there to arrest me, I told him that was his affair and was of no concern to me, and started up the 2^nd floor stairs to my office.

I recognized that I was going to be forcibly involved and I was alert to a point of high tension. But still, I knew I was faced with a choice of being arrested or of arresting myself. I knew then that my arrest was to be his affair, since he had not the conscience to do otherwise, and later, that or the ten or so others who answered his telephone call for help when I refused to go with him voluntarily. I wasn’t going to contribute my body for incarceration anymore than I would contribute federal income taxes for militarization. This would be giving sanction to the government’s inflicting punishment upon the individual. But just as militarization is evil, so too is the punitive institution.

The government has prepared a glossy brochure about Women’s Federal Prison at Alderson, West Virginia. They call their penal process ‘rehabilitation’! This is a calculated misuse of the term. They proceed due south of rehabilitation. Such downgrading of human beings — infantile treatment of the women, the frequent apathy toward the physical ailments of inmates, the absurd restrictions — is anything but preparation for constructive living. This was equally true of the Cook County Jail.

This maltreatment of prisoners would be bad enough if done out of ignorance. But attempts at concealment of the facts by all levels of government personnel, with restraint of information and with lies, reveals the hypocritical state of such authority.

I’ve learned, since my release from Alderson, that a number of lies in regard to me and treatment of me were given to the Press by the wardens of both the County Jail and the prison and by the U.S. marshal. I will recount some in a later issue, but let me state a few of these now and set the facts in order:

Rose was arrested and taken to the Clerk’s office of the county jail.

I wasn’t taken to any office, but was carried upstairs and dumped on a bed in the incorrigible cell of the “Hole.” The Hole is usually reserved for narcotics addicts who are breaking the habit. It was overheated because addicts in that condition are always cold. They vomited all day and all night and in between they talked in the lewdest profanity. The Hole is a four part unit — 1 larger room about 9′×12′ and 3 tiny cells, removed from the outer door, about 4′×8′. The grey speckled floors were stone, the clay colored walls, iron. The larger section had four iron beds with mattresses and bedding. A bed in each of the little cells took up half the width. There’s a seatless toilet in each. The two outer ones had windows that opened (but that were kept closed because the addicts complained of being cold). Only one of these boasted a sink. Two cell doors remained open usually, while the one in which I was put was locked. In that cell, the window was nearly opaque with dirt and with heavy screening, and iron bars were on the outside. It could not be opened. Under it, going full blast always, was a radiator. The only way I could get relief from the heat, and a breath of cool air, was by lying flat on the floor on my stomach and inhaling of the stream that flowed under the hall door from several feet away. The iron bed had a wafer-thin mattress on it and was so short that my head and feet stuck out simultaneously beyond its borders. I was given a clean sheet and a blanket. To get some sleep at night, I tilted the bed up on one end out of the way and put the mattress on the floor. I slept fitfully with my head resting on stone, under the toilet. Whenever a toilet in an adjacent cell was flushed, the substance would back up into the others. This kept me jumping up throughout the night, reflushing the one over my head. The radiator boiled away, where my feet were, all night long. I didn’t wash for 3½ days because I was told I couldn’t use the facilities without begging. Frequently the matron put food for me on the floor.

Rose proceeded to take off her clothes and to remain thus in the cell.

I was forcibly undressed by two matrons after refusing to give up my own clothes. Then I was manually searched all over and forced into a striped cotton dress that was ripped in two places. All my clothes — even shoes — were taken from me. The next morning I was told repeatedly that I would be left in jail to rot unless I got dressed and walked out to go to court. I refused. About an hour later, without explanation, my clothes were given back to me. Another hour passed, and when I refused to walk out, I was dragged from the cell, up the steps, into a wheelchair and hauled off to court. When I returned, the nurse had trouble removing my clothes by herself, so she didn’t bother to take any more than my skirt. I fashioned another by doubling a sheet and wrapping it around my middle. I refused to put on the striped dress she’d provided. On the fifth day, after I’d been dragged from my prayers and put in isolation cell of the so-called hospital (a dingy white-painted dormitory), the nurse, who proved to be sympathetic and courteous, offered me a nightgown which I accepted. I wore this to bed and whenever I washed my own clothes.

Rose took exercises unclad.

Silly. I always wore the above-mentioned.

Rose, therefore, had to jump into bed when the warden and a reporter from the Daily News came to interview her. She told her story, said the reporter, who “quoted” her in the News.

How reluctant I’ll be to believe anything printed in the daily papers from now on. No reporter was ever admitted to quarters where I was confined. And such quotes are out-and-out lies. Moreover, I neither saw nor talked to the warden until the last day when, under his supervision, I was dragged from the cell and carted to the U.S. hospital.

Rose left the cell to go downstairs and see a boyfriend, but she wouldn’t go to see her parents.

During my incarceration I walked out of the immediate confines 3 times — once at Alderson when I helped carry a sick inmate to the hospital car, once to my release and one other time, at the Cook County Jail. And I went to talk to Rev. Ernest Bromley, editor of The Peacemaker. At first I hesitated. And then I decided that too few people knew my views on tax refusal and the like, so this was to me a fine chance to express these views through the newspaper. I then resumed my plan to see no one unless they were admitted to the area where I was confined. My mother was admitted and I welcomed her.

The other inmates were sneaking Rose candy bars during her fast. The warden, head matron, priest and others had proof.

This’s the first time in my experience that fantasy has become proof. I ate nothing throughout my whole time in jail and nobody crammed anything down my throat. After my removal to the U.S. hospital I ate nothing. I drank no water the first 3½ days of jail, very little — spasmodically — in-between, and none the last 9 days before force-feeding. I did not wish to crave things that could be withheld from me, because emotional control meant freedom.

Rose enjoyed being fed through a tube in her nose. She didn’t struggle.

At Alderson, I didn’t struggle. I gave voice protest and continued whatever I was doing. In the beginning at the U.S. hospital in Chicago, I had struggled, nonviolently against four men and two women. It took them 20 minutes to turn me over and stretch me out and another 20 minutes to get me tied, hand and foot to the bed, in a straitjacket. I couldn’t do much moving in that state, but they further secured me with a restraining blanket made of bulky canvas. Then they tightened a rope across my chest. It was in the mid-eighties in that room and no air was stirring. I had trouble breathing. I was miserable. But they had an easy time force-feeding me. By the next morning I was aching all over. One of the doctors came in and asked me how I felt. I felt terrible, I said. Would I struggle if he let me out? I’d thought about that overnight. How easy it was for them to force food into me—how uncomfortable it was for me. Besides this, I was 37 lbs. below normal weight and very weak. If I could keep them from having power over me, struggle I would. But I knew I couldn’t keep up even the kind of effort I’d made the night before, and neither did I have the control yet to remain lying in one position for a long period of time. So, I told the doctor, no. Did I want to be untied? Yes. So, he walked away and left me like that for several hours more. I stayed, thus restricted, for nearly 24 hours. The night before, when they inserted the tube, the other doctor had jammed it into my nose, letting it stop at my throat. I tried desperately to get my breath but I kept choking. I could see the doctor’s face, looking like a great wax mask—with expensive eyes—magnified enormously. He watched me as though I were a specimen under glass. I gagged three times and he watched me. “Alright now, breathe,” he said this steadily, “through your mouth”. Of course I did, and, in one movement, he jammed the tube down to my stomach. Blood bubbled from my nose and mouth. It continued for hours, after that. My nose and throat were inflamed and sore for 4 days. My nose remained sore and ran constantly, and I sneezed again and again throughout 12 days of force-feeding. The doctor at Anderson was considerate and gentle in this. He used a smaller tube and put it down by degrees. There was very little irritation. My nose did run for weeks though, and always when I talked. I sneezed, because the tube was left there all the time. I plugged up the nostril with cotton to keep the thing from wriggling. I slept with it and otherwise lived with it for 76 days and nights. That made a total of 88 days of force-feeding.

Rose was being well-fed, gaining much weight, and was getting 3000 calories per day.

For nine days at Alderson, I was force-fed 2 pints of water with 5% sugar and 2 pints of a mixture of egg, molasses, sugar, salt, water, evaporated milk and orange juice. After that the mixture was doubled and the sugar-water eliminated. When I was removed to solitary confinement, the mixture was cut 25%. Then it was cut a second time. I was carried to solitary 25 lbs. underweight. Taking measurement of myself revealed I hadn’t gained a pound. Limited exercise wore me out. To keep from losing, frequently I’d spend long hours in bed. Hospital aides (inmates) told me the mixture contained very little protein and an abnormally high amount of molasses, salt and orange juice. Long before they told me this I’d started drinking lots of water because I was feeling irritation from the acidity. I was drinking as much as 15 glasses of water each day. Sometimes I felt a little feverish and my face would swell. That was when the prison staff would compliment me on how nice and fat I was getting. Only when friends came to the prison, asking after my welfare, did the aides tell me the protein had been increased noticeably but that the molasses and salt and orange juice remained high. Again, before they told me this, I’d already noticed my measurements were increasing normally. When I was released, I was 10 lbs. underweight.

Rose liked the feeding.

I was forced-fed in a ragged pattern. The aides and nurses came any time between sun-up and 9:30 at night. I overcame feelings of weakness usually through prayer, and sometimes, as I said before, by just climbing into bed. Food was left as an enticement throughout most of my confinement. An aide who felt sorry for me told the head nurse I wasn’t getting enough nourishment. “That’s impossible.” said the nurse. After that they left a glassful of the stuff on the dresser. Often I was spattered with the stuff, whenever the tube came off the syringe. So, too, were walls, ceiling, floor, draperies bed, bedding — everything in the cell. And usually it was left where it landed. I made a practice of going on with whatever I was doing. At first, the nurses carried or sat me into position for force-feeding. Sometimes the aides would lurk, pitcher and syringe in hand, waiting for me to halt so that they could pour the stuff down easily. After I was moved to solitary, the aides were ultimately told to walk away if I didn’t sit down right away, so sometimes my stomach was left empty. One day I accidentally got a hole in the tube. The doctor refused to let the aides cut it, and he decided that neither did he have the time to leave the hospital to change it. I wasn’t fed for 25 hours.

Rose was given considerable freedom of movement.

When this was said, I was in solitary confinement in the maximum security cottage, one of only two with bars on the windows and with locked outer doors. I remained there for 27 straight days in full confinement. The last 31 days, the cell door was opened from 8 A.M. to 5 P.M.

And so the lies went and there are more — most skillful — all paid for with federal income tax. Lies. The Official order of the prison day, and at Alderson, the green grass grew all around. For the grounds were lovely to look at — lovely its trees, its broad lawns and gay spring flowers, lovely the birds singing outside the cottages where wires crawled through the walls like snakes, so that every word that every inmate spoke day or night was listened to and taken down on a tape recorder. There weren’t any secrets. Next time, I’ll tell about the alleged psychiatric and medical examinations at Alderson and about the marshal’s predictions about what the inmates would do to me when they found out I wouldn’t work. Also, I’ll tell about a time of weakness. One morning, for a moment, I was in a turmoil. Daily discipline, including prayer exercises, helped me to regain strength.

More from Karl Meyer, in the November 1960 issue (excerpts):

Since September 1958 I have had a small house of hospitality, five rooms where I have lived with nine or ten people who were sick, poor, orphans, old, travelers or needy of other kinds.

Since December 1958 I have sought some way to work for the support of my responsibilities to this house and not pay federal income taxes for the support of militarism.

In March 1960 I quit my job where taxes were withheld and resolved not to pay withholding tax anymore and went to jail for 54 days in solidarity with tax refuser Eroseanna Robinson, who had just been imprisoned here in Chicago.

After my release I began a search for work without taxes. I experimented with self-employment in odd jobs and in tutoring. I tried to persuade employers to pay for my work in the form of a direct donation to St. Stephens House, without withholding tax. I received an opinion from a lawyer that Internal Revenue Service had ruled that this type of arrangement with a charitable organization was legal for hospitals, so I applied at a number of hospitals, but was turned down. I looked for part time work paid for in cash. Nothing worked, particularly me.

Being under the firm impression that only one’s relatives could be claimed as dependents for the purpose of withholding exemptions, I complained bitterly to my pacifist brethren that, in fact, I had nine dependents but was unable to claim them for non-tax purposes. Not one of these experts on tax resistance set me straight.

On October 25, after five months of frustration, I checked on the Internal Revenue Service definition of dependents. This is how it reads: “To qualify as your dependent… a person (a) must receive more than one-half of his support from you for the year, and (b) must-have less than $600 gross income during the year… and (c) must not be claimed as an exemption by such person[’]s husband or wife, and (and) must be a citizen or resident of the United States… and (e) must (1) have your home as his principal residence and be a member of your household for the entire year, or (2) be related to you…”

I counted four people in my household, in addition to myself, whom I could claim for dependency exemptions. I discovered that all along I might have been earning $3000 per year without a cent of withholding tax. I could have kicked myself all the way down Clark St.

We need more small houses of hospitality “to shelter the homeless at a personal sacrifice” instead of delivering them to the City and the State to be supported by taxes, on the street or in the jails. We believe that housing the unemployed, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, clothing the naked, caring for the sick and the aged and, last of all, visiting the prisoners are parts of a total Gospel of Peace. If we do these things, we can also starve the tax collector, by feeding the poor. We can build “a new society in the shell of the old,” a City of God, and swing wide its gates to let the King, and his ambassadors, enter in triumph.

Not all of the poor who come to our door come in the embassy of God. Several nights ago one of the men came with two drop-cloths and a gallon of turpentine “from the job” and asked permission to leave them here and stay the night himself, and I, in all innocence, agreed to this. The next morning, two painters arrived, with a policeman, demanding the drop-cloths, which had been stolen from them and traced to our house. I turned over the drop-cloths, but the policeman also demanded that I turn over the thief. When I declined to do this, he said that he would take me to the station and book me for possession of stolen property. The painters agreed to sign a complaint against me, because, they said, not only had the cloths been stolen, but also, some paint had been spilt and now they would have to pay for it out of their own pockets. However, perhaps if I would reimburse them for the spilt paint, they would find it in their hearts to forget about the complaint. How much paint was lost, asked the policeman? Ten dollars worth. Now, half a gallon of paint may have been spilt, but how could anyone have spilt ten dollars worth? Still I had to take their word for it or they would surely have taken me to the station and signed the complaint, so in the end I paid and they went away satisfied with their take, all of which goes to prove the old moral: one good theft deserves another, or no use taking a fall over spilt paint. After the danger had passed, I found the thief under a bed in the farthest corner of the back room. He said he was sorry. And I said he sure as hell should be. And after a little of that he left.

I did reap an unexpected reward for my ordeal however, for that morning the most shiftless character in the house, out of an excess of sympathy and generosity, offered to press my trousers for me.

I might also say that some of the “rich” even come to our door as ambassadors of God. There is one man who comes from time to time and leaves things that we need (clothing, furnishings or household items) inside the door. He just opens the door, puts them inside and goes away. For almost two years he has been doing this. He used to come perhaps once a month, but recently he has taken to coming much more frequently. For a long time we knew nothing about him because we never saw him come, but several times recently, when the door was locked, he knocked and handed in his gifts when the door was opened and then left very quickly. I have always respected his anonymity, because I remember from my childhood the story of the shoemaker and the elves: the elves used to come at night and make shoes for the shoemaker, but one night he tried to catch them at their work and they disappeared and never returned again. (After the story I told above, let me hasten to say that there is always a ticket with the things that this man brings so that I know they are not stolen.)

During the voter registration period, one man from the neighborhood came in and asked, “Is this a registration office?” And I looked at the crucifix on the wall and the picture of Ammon Hennacy and said, “No, it isn’t.” The Democratic precinct worker for our building came in to see if we were registered, and she told me that I am going to vote under the name of Geoffrey Thornton, because he is registered but she can’t find him anywhere in the building. She needs votes but this is one she won’t get. Three young Catholic workers have said they may join me in the work here soon. If they do, we will be well staffed to carry out the Green Revolution program I outlined in my last letter.

The next article concerns Laurence Hislam, a war tax resister who is new to me. It comes from the March 1962 issue:

Catholic Pacifist Jailed in England Father of Five Refuses Civil Defense Tax

By Robert Steed

My friend Laurie Hislam, who resembles Ammon Hennacy in many ways, was recently sentenced to a term in jail far refusing to pay his Civil Defense rates. He served two months last year for taking part in the civil disobedience campaigns of the Committee of 100 which protested the British involvement in the nuclear arms race.

I was in court with Laurie in Octeber of 1960 when he first appeared on this charge. When he put on bis best suit, cranked up his car (a huge, old London taxi), which finally had to be pushed down a hill to get it started, and drove to town where other friends were waiting in court I was expecting fireworks but the magistrate put a damper on the proceedings and said he would allow no speechmaking. He said a note would be made of the tax refusal, and went on to the next hearing. Laurie said the court would probably send someone around to the house and want to take away a table or a few chairs and auction them off for the amount owed (the former owner having the privilege of bidding for them too) and debated whether any kind of resistance should be offered and if so what kind. When I left a few days later nothing had happened and a month after that when we met at the Spode House PAX Conference it was still the same. And now more than a year later I have heard in a letter from Laurie’s wife, Winifred, that he is serving time for the offense.

Lest I give the impression that Laurie became a radical in middle-age I should also say that he declined to serve in World War Ⅱ and instead of showing up for his physical went off on a tour of England and Scotland selling anarchist literature for Freedom Press. When he got back to London after a year on the road the police picked him up but the army doctors found something wrong with one of his feet and rejected him.

In the intervening years he has become a Catholic, gotten married and moved to the Cottswolds in the west of England near Gloucester where he and his wife built their house with their own hands and are raising five beautiful daughters. The whole family is vegetarian. Here is the text of Laurie’s leaflet explaining his position which was distributed in the Stroud area:

Why I Am In Jail

I have just commenced serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the Stroud (Glos.) Magistrates, and I believe it is important that it should be clearly understood by the members of the community on whose behalf the Magistrates have officially acted, why this has happened.

For the past two years I have refused to pay the portion of the Local Rate (roughly 1 penny in the pound) allocated to “Civil Defense.” My reasons are as follows:

1. There is not even any pretense of preparation to protect the people of Stroud in the event of war.
2. According to Government spokesmen, there is no known means of protecting the population against nuclear attack.
3. Even if “Civil Defense” could be effective (which I do not believe possible) I would still feel bound to refuse to pay for it, since “Civil Defense” is an essential part of the preparation for a war in which millions of innocent people would be brutally killed or maimed.
4. I believe that those who support “Civil Defense” have been deceived by the Government into believing that they are helping to save life and assist the injured, whereas in fact by their acceptance of the need for “Civil Defense,” they have given their tacit agreement (in certain circumstances) to the waging of nuclear war and its unimaginably terrible suffering.
5. Worst of all is the hypocrisy attached to “Western” propaganda, which says, in effect, the Russians are the atheistic barbarians and we are good people trying to protect Christianity and democracy, whereas, in fact we and the U.S.A. are prepared to collaborate with the Russians in the ultimate blasphemy of destroying the whole of creation.

A so-called policy of which this is the logical result can never be justified, and I appeal to everyone who reads this statement to seriously consider his or her position. Examine your conscience and ask yourself the question: Am I willing to lend my support, either actively or (as the majority, unfortunately do) by my silence, to the preparation for nuclear war? (Remembering that “Civil Defense" is part of the insidious mental conditioning for war-acceptance.)

If we give our silent agreement to Lord Home’s recent boast of our ability to annihilate all Russia’s cities (even in revenge) we have committed murder in our hearts. You can no longer remain silent and still hope to retain your integrity. I may be forcibly silenced for a time, but I ask you to speak out fearlessly against the crime which is being prepared by the world’s leaders. Above all—speak out for the children and babies of the world who rely upon you for protection. You cannot give protection by preparing for war — a war in which there can be no defense — only revengeful slaughter on both sides.

Laurence Hislam,
Brownshill,
Stroud, Glos.

This next comes from the September 1963 issue:

Tax Refusal

Handbook on Nonpayment of War Taxes; published by the Peacemakers’ Movement; 35 cents; 52 pages; available from the Peacemakers (1208 Sylvan Ave., Cincinnati 41, Ohio)

Reviewed by James Forest.

For all those who have ever felt a deeply responsive chord struck upon reading or re-reading the story of 10 just men saving the city, this book on conscientious tax-refusal should be meaningful.

The book is divided into a number of sections: there is a good collection of fairly brief quotations by a wide range of tax-refusers, a chapter on the philosophy and history of this particular form of conscientious objection, considerable material concerning the inherent legalities/illegalities, descriptions of the basic forms of refusal (surprising variety) and, most important, a substantial collection of “personal experience” sketches. The reader might find it useful to see a tightened version of the major contents:

Philosophy

Nonviolence begins with personal disarmament: “Lord, make me an instrument of your peace. Where there is hate, let me sow love.” It is not a partial disarmament. At least that isn’t the goal. It is a serious and concerted effort to shred the rhinoceros hide which makes us either witting or unwitting enemies to other men. (I recently had the opportunity to hear a young woman describe the effect her first long term contact and participation in a nonviolent project — in this case the Walk to Cuba — had on her. She spoke of the sensation of peeling off layer upon layer of dead skin, of feeling the wind for the first time.) What is it the pacifist says? I refuse to be your enemy. I refuse to be your enemy so much that I will fight for you, fight with you, fight with love to see justice done — even at personal risk. The Great Commandment: “Love one another as I have loved you.” I cannot be free until you are free. I cannot be comfortable or safe or satisfied until these things are common property.

It is not necessary to quote here statistics offered in the book on where taxes go. We all know. A good deal of it goes to the arms race in all its continuing facets. I don’t think it would make much difference if it were only a little. There is nothing more moral in contributing a nickel to a child’s death than in giving a dollar for the cause. But the plain fact is that more than half that money goes for that purpose, and we do give it.

Said one woman, Miriam Nicholas, deciding this was one contribution she would be unable to make, “…the government expects me to help pay for weapons that could destroy all life on this earth.” “This I must not give,” said Wendal Bull, finishing a similar statement. “You may be imprisoned, but that is sometimes more honorable,” Ross Anderson stated. “If I can’t stop other people’s killing.” Milton Mayer decided, “I must stop my own.”

What Is the Law?

The legal aspects of tax refusal are complicated and inevitably vary from case to case. It is, of course, a punishable offense to refuse all or part of one’s taxes. It is also an offense not to submit the required documentation. Any noncooperation with the Internal Revenue Service is illegal. The penalty can be as high as a $10,000 and a year in jail plus the cost of prosecution.

In practice, for reasons which one can easily understand, no such sentence is ever meted out. In fact few tax-refusers ever find themselves in front of a judge at all. It is interesting to draw some quick statistics from the 41 cases detailed in the handbook (there is some slight overlapping): Four lost their jobs (two were Protestant ministers). Six were jailed, average sentence served being about three months. (Those jailed, it should be noted, refused any alternatives: put no money in the bank so that it couldn’t be seized, held no volatile property in their own names, etc.) Nine had property or funds seized. (The government, when it desires to seize anything, prefers funds; attempts to garnish salaries or draw from cheeking and savings accounts are most common. As a last resort it may seize property for public auction, such as a house.) 29 received no punishment and had no property or funds seized. That is not to say there was no intimidation, that the going was easy. It wasn’t. But the simple truth is, or at least has been, that there are still relatively few tax collectors, district attorneys or judges who wish to play a modern version of Pilate’s role. We can be glad there remain many (perhaps even a growing number) who do not feel justice is served by stale coercion of conscience.

Forms of Refusal

There are, and this I didn’t realize, several distinct forms of tax-refusal, each with its own sub-variations. The first and probably most well known is absolute nonpayment.

Absolute Refusal

To practice absolute nonpayment it is necessary either to earn an income too low to be taxable (Citizens and residents, under 65, can figure as nontaxable any income which is below the number of members in the family times $600. Thus a family of three would be tax exempt if it made less than $1,800 in the course of a year), or, if is is impossible or philosophically repugnant, to earn a taxable income where one is not subjected to withholding tax, such as by having one’s own business or forming one with others of similar concern. Ammon Hennacy, though he owes $1,300 in back taxes, is for the present in the first group, earning less than a taxable income. Karl Meyer was in the latter group until he discovered he could count all the members of St. Stephen’s house of hospitality as dependents (as long as they had lived in the hospice from the beginning of the year and received half or more of their subsistence from him). Persons interested in both tax refusal and running a small house of hospitality might find this an ideal solution.

Partial Refusal

For persons who are having taxes withheld from their incomes there is the opportunity of refusing to pay the balance due, or part of it.

Others, whether they have taxes withheld from their earnings or not, sometimes choose to pay only the percentage which they feel is used for peaceful purposes — 30% to 40%. UNESCO seems to be one of the frequent recipients of the balance.

A third form of partial refusal includes persons such as Franklin Zahn, who annually withholds a “token ten dollars.” These believe that the minimum one can do is to refuse a symbolic sum. “Ten dollars is large enough to be noticed,” Zahn says, “but small enough to avoid excessive penalty.” The “token ten,” he suggests, could be given to some constructive project and the IRS so notified.

(The book also relates Zahn’s refusal, beginning in 1951, to pay that portion of his telephone bill which was a federal tax, at the time 49¢ monthly. He explained this action to the telephone company, saying “My refusal to pay this tax is part of a larger rejection of all participation in defense activities.” Before long his telephone was removed. His resultant letter of explanation to friends, an apology, is a document worth reading: “Three times I have refused the monthly telephone war tax of 49¢ (15%) and now [garbled text omitted ―♇] is no more, as of November 14, 1951. I regret much of the inconvenience of this fails on you, and offer my apologies to you and others who thus suffer from my act of conscience. When irked, please consider: 1. Somewhere in the world there may be one less bullet killing a human being. 2. The $3.74 saved monthly will be used for CARE parcels. 3. If it actually is the narrow choice I feel it to be, you would prefer me to be connected with my highest conscience than with a mere gadget.”)

Conclusion

Finishing the handbook, I am reminded of a brief epigram of James Baldwin contained in The Fire Next Time. “To act is to be committed, and to be committed is to be in danger.” How we admire action and commitment! St. Francis strikes off to the Holy Land with his nonviolent “Army of Love,” an army, as Clement of Alexandria would call it, “which sheds no blood.” And we applaud this, one of the few moments of sanctity which occurred during all the Crusades, one of the few a Christian can recall with pride. St. Maximillian refuses to serve in the military and shortly dies under the executioner’s axe. The Cure d’Area, as a young man, changes his name and flees to the mountains rather than be conscripted. Before death he recalls this, saying be never felt his conscience burdened by it. And on and on. Thank God the list is endless. No editorializing is needed on lives like these. Somehow they change the question. It is no longer Should I be a tax-refuser? It becomes How can I be anything else?

It is fitting to end this discussion with a quotation the book provides from Milton Mayer:

“The power to stop war is not in my hands, and never will be. The only power that is in my hands is to stop killing my fellowmen. A thousand, or two thousand, or fifty thousand people refusing to go on killing via the tax method may save the old way of life; fewer than that were required to save Sodom. But if a new way of life is the condition of the revolution to which we are called, then we must find it in our hearts, and when we do that we will stop killing our fellowmen and, best of all, stop justifying our doing it. If I can’t stop other people’s killing, I must still stop my own.”

Another book review from the November 1963 issue:

The Cold War and the Income Tax

The Cold War and the Income Tax, by Edmond Wilson; Farrar, Straus and Company; 1968; 118 pp.; $2.95.

Reviewed by James Forest.

Edmund Wilson’s most recent book is a small volume which carries the subtitle “A Protest.” Indeed it is that: a forceful, plain-spoken broadside at the cold war and the related income tax, and though it is not without blemish, it ought to provide at least an awakening for a great many.

What Mr. Wilson has done is to tell a simple, and at times homely, tale that began with carelessness (or more likely unadmitted and ingrained Yankee independence) and concluded with a monumental decision, at least for our timid age: a modified refusal to pay income taxes.

Much of the book is devoted to a detailed account of the original carelessness, fascinating in the sense that a common experience of almost everyone is seen in the sharp relief of Mr. Wilson’s prose — the utterly frustrating encounters with the rule-book bureaucrats, who seem always the same whether it is a hospital clinic or the army or a tax office that houses their working hours, or no matter what their ideology may be.

In Mr. Wilson’s case, his long encounter was precipitated by almost, dedicated indifference to taxes.

Until 1946 taxes were no problem to him, as they were automatically withheld by his various employers. But after that year he began to devote himself to fulltime independent writing, and of course there was no withholding. Six years went by, no taxes were paid, no returns filed, and though he tells us he occasionally thought about the eventual necessity of paying up, he was unaware of the astounding severity the law applies for even minor neglect. When at last he spoke to a lawyer friend, saying he might need some assistance in preparing his returns, the lawyer was flabbergasted and immediately urged Mr. Wilson to establish citizenship outside the United States before it was too late. But even the author of To the Finland Station can be naive, and he couldn’t believe it would be more convenient to change countries than negotiate a debt. He insisted on settlement, gave the lawyer a check and told him to begin his work. “You’re a brave man,” his lawyer told him.

The Years That Followed

It would be of little value to outline the years that followed 1955, when the arduous work began. He must often have wished he had followed his friend’s advice and tucked himself away in a friendlier economy, where if he were paying taxes, at least it wouldn’t be for war. It took Mr. Wilson five years and two lawyers to settle the case.

At some unspecified point, Mr. Wilson’s instinctual annoyance emerged into a time of probing the meaning of his experience, the inadequacies of the collection system and, most important, the uses the money was being put to. His discoveries are carefully outlined—translating the noble sounding verbiage of the Administration’s Budget in Brief (which says in part, “The Federal Government’s final responsibility is to help safeguard the peace and security of the free world. This is our largest category of expenditures… Expenditures devoted to national security… space programs… and the continuing cost of past wars amount to 79% of the administrative budget…”), translating this into the facts of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of napalm and phosphorus bombs, of disease, warfare. The latter two are of particular interest, because, (despite protest demonstrations at Ft. Detrick, Md., the U.S. research-development center for chemical and biological weapons) there is little popularisation of these methods of warfare, though it is admitted that napalm bombs are being used in Vietnam — as they have been widely used elsewhere — and there is evidence that disease weapons are also being employed. For instance, water supplies in South Vietnam have been poisoned in areas where both civilians and Vietcong rebels use the same well, killing some Vletcong, but also many non-combatants who were merely thirsty.

About napalm: It is, Mr. Wilson writes, “a kind of jelly saturated with gasoline, which is ignited by the bursting of the bomb. Its great advantage is that it sticks to whatever it touches… Its effect on human beings has been described by a BBC correspondent in Korea: ‘In front of us a curious figure was standing a little crouched, legs straddled, arms held out from his sides. He had no eyes, and the whole of his body, nearly all of which was visible through tatters of burned rags, was covered with a hard black crust speckled with yellow pus. A Korean woman by his side began to speak, and the interpreter said: “He has to stand, sir, cannot sit or lie.” He had to stand because he was no longer covered with skin…’ ” The BBC correspondent goes on to explain, however, that he would rather be killed by napalm than phosphorus or flame throwers.

Toward Inspired Derangement

The material on disease warfare (often termed bacteriological, biological or chemical) is on much the same level, though not so grossly horrifying, as we do not see it translated into eye witness accounts. Involved is the same degradation of any value system. For as one military man, Admiral Mahan, puts it, every advance in the use of lethal weapons, beginning with firearms, has been denounced as cruel. He goes on to point out that shells with asphyxiating gases could produce “decisive results.” Says Philip Noel-Baker, in his book The Arms Race, “All the leading governments have them now.” And in 1955 the Chief Chemical Officer of the United States Army announced that even “mental derangement might be deliberately inspired” by this form of weaponry.

As Mr. Wilson observes, “Human life since Stalin and the Nazis has been something that few people in the East or West any longer care much about.” Or as Robert Pickus, Turn Toward Peace executive, observed: “We support policies that would make Genghis Kahn vomit, and yet we turn out for Church every Sunday.”

Of course the question is, what can we do about all this? To Catholic Worker readers this is no new question, as we have been fighting this a long time.

Mr. Wilson outlines the general steps of tax refusal (see detailed article on this subject in the September 1963 Catholic Worker [Forest’s review, see above]) and describes the course of two more well known refusers, Dr. A.J. Muste of the Committee for Nonviolent Action and Liberation magazine, and the Rev. Maurice McCrackin, active in the civil rights effort and the Peacemaker movement.

He goes on to describe his personal response, which is to keep his income below taxable levels. (It is a fact, though it is not mentioned in this work, that Mr. Wilson has assigned all royalties of this book to use in the peace movement.) He has decided not to go to jail, however, and will move to another country before allowing this to occur. But he is determined to withdraw his support:

“When the stakes in games become so serious — when everybody’s life is at stake — they ought not to be played at all, and the taxpayers should not support them.”

The following article, from the April 1964 issue, announces the formation of the “War Tax Protest Committee,” a group I hadn’t heard of before. I’m guessing it was an early, regional form of the group “National War Tax Resistance,” which came together in 1969.

Tax Refusal

The War Tax Protest Committee was formed February 18 to bring together West Coast conscientious objectors to income taxes for war and war preparations. The aim of the committee is to heighten public awareness of uses to which tax monies are put and to suggest alternatives to the submissive payment of such taxes. A range of activities around the April 15 tax deadline is being planned, including an all-day picket of IRS regional headquarters in San Francisco, a press conference, and a public meeting.

Founders of the War Tax Protest Committee include Ammon Hennacy, Roy Kepler, Mark Morris, Britt Peter, Ira Sandperl, Barton Stone, Sam Tyson, and Ida and Denny Wilcher.

The War Tax Protest Committee welcomes all persons involved in war tax protest — from total refusers to those who include a letter of protest with their return.

Creation of this new committee took place at the Committee for Nonviolent Action-West weekend seminar on Conscientious Objection to Income Taxes for War Preparations at Forest Farm in Marin County, February 14 to 16. The new committee, however, will have no organisational tie with CNVA-West, which is furnishing it with office space.

c/o CNVA-West P.O. Box 5983, San Francisco 1, Calif.

The May 1964 issue reprinted a letter from Joan Baez announcing her income tax resistance:

Tax Protest

Joan Baez, American folksinger, has refused to pay that 60% of her 1963 income tax which goes for military expenditures. She sent the following letter to the Internal Revenue Service explaining her action:

Dear Friends:

What I have to say is this:

I do not believe in the weapons of war.

Weapons and Wars have murdered, burned, distorted, crippled, and caused endless varieties of pain to men, women, and children for too long.

Our modern weapons can reduce a man to a piece of dust in a split second, can make a woman’s hair fall out or cause her baby to be born a monster. They can kill the part of a turtle’s brain that tells him where he is going, so instead of trudging to the ocean he trudges confusedly towards the desert, slowly, blinking his poor eyes, until he finally scorches to death and turns into a shell and some bones.

I am not going to volunteer the 60% of my year’s income tax that goes to armaments. There are two reasons for my action.

One is enough. It is enough to say that no man has the right to take another man’s life. Now we plan and build weapons that can take thousands of lives in one second, millions of lives in a day, billions in a week.

No one has a right to do that.

It is madness.

It is wrong.

My other reason is that modern war is impractical and stupid. We spend billions of dollars a year on weapons which scientists, politicians, military men, and even the President all agree must never be used. That is impractical. The expression “National Security” has no meaning. It refers to our Defense System, which I call our Offense System, and which is a farce. It continues expanding and heaping up, one horrible kill machine upon another, until for some reason or another a button will be pushed and our world, or a good portion of it, will be blown to pieces. That is not security. That is stupidity.

People are starving to death in some places of the world. They look to this country with all its wealth and all its power. They look at our National budget. They are supposed to respect us. They do not respect us. They despise us. That is impractical and stupid.

Maybe the line should have been drawn when the bow and arrow were invented, maybe at the gun, the cannon, maybe. Because now it is all wrong, all impractical, and all stupid. So all I can do is draw my own line now. I am no longer supporting my portion of the arms race.

Sincerely Yours,
Joan C. Baez

Karl Meyer was back for the January 1967 edition:

War Escalates, Tax Refusal Called For

“The future will be different, if we make the present different.” ―Peter Maurin

By Karl Meyer

I have been refusing to pay Federal income tax, or to file tax returns, since 1960. Finally, on December 13^th, after several visits, an Internal Revenue Service agent sent me returns for the years 1962, 1963 and 1965, which he had prepared and filed without my cooperation or consent, claiming a total of $1,099.12 in back taxes and penalties for those years. Since 1958 we have shared the greater part of our personal income with people who have no income, through the house of hospitality, and since 1960 I have claimed an appropriate number of exemptions on the withholding tax slips which one must file with one’s employers in order to hold a job, but I.R.S. did not recognize these exemptions, because I refused to file a return or to substantiate a claim to such exemptions in their conversations with me.

My resistance to Federal taxes is not based on legalities, but on moral opposition to militarism, and I will maintain it in spite of legalities and without taking refuge in them. I will never pay the tax that is claimed, even if I must become a pilgrim from job to job in order to avoid the attachment of my wages. (A national list of income-tax refusers is being collected for April 15 publication, by the No Tax for War Committee, c/o Rev. Maurice McCrackin. 932 Dayton St., Cincinnati, Ohio 45214. Last year’s list included the names of Dorothy Day, Martin Corbin and Ammon Hennacy among a list of two hundred.)

But I am not writing about this because I expect a mass addition of Catholic Worker readers to the list of income-tax refusers (it is not that easy to resist so thoroughly the demand of the state). I mention it as background to a more modest effort that we have also been promoting. Since September we have been advocating a first step toward denying to the government funds to carry on the war against the Vietnamese people, refusal to pay the 10% excise tax on telephone service. This tax had been reduced to 3% as of January 1, 1966 and was scheduled to expire altogether, but it was restored in March 1966. The rationale for our campaign to refuse the tax is based on the words of Congressman Wilbur Mills, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee and administration floor leader for the legislation which restored the tax, who stated directly at the outset of debate on the measure, “The bill, H.R. 12752, is intended first and foremost to provide additional revenues to help finance the expenditures required to sustain our operation in Vietnam!” (Congressional Record, Feb. 23, 1966.) Further along he declared, “I believe it is clear that it is the Vietnam, and only the Vietnam, operation, which makes this bill necessary,” and a third time, “I have stated, and I state it again, that it is the extraordinary expenses attributable to our operation in Vietnam that are responsible for the Ways and Means Committee reporting this bill.”

The Chicago Workshop in Nonviolence, Peacemakers, the Committee for Nonviolent Action, The War Resisters League, and other groups supporting the campaign have already collected several hundred names of people who are refusing the tax, but not yet in the numbers for which I had hoped. It is not that any danger is involved in the act. In no case has telephone service been terminated, because, under the regulations, the ultimate responsibility for collecting the tax lies with the I.R.S., not with the telephone companies, which are only required to bill for it. And the I.R.S. so far has done practically nothing to collect from any of the phone-tax refusers. This is understandable when you realize that the amounts of money are so very small, that it took I.R.S. six years to get around to trying to collect over a thousand dollars from a publicly acknowledged income-tax refuser like myself, and that they have never succeeded in collecting from Ammon Hennacy or numerous other tax refusers.

For the individual, the telephone tax by itself seems an insignificant amount of money, though the Johnson administration is counting on it, together with a 1% automobile excise tax increase, to raise $1.2 billion in fiscal 1967, which would pay for about twenty days of killing in Vietnam at current rates of spending. For the individual, telephone-tax refusal is a small step, but for many it is a significant step, because for the first time they are acknowledging in action that if they had the free choice they would refuse to contribute to the activities of the federal Government, because its military activities outweigh its positive tax-supported programs. And if they admit that they are involuntary participants in such a great evil, they must face the issue of struggling in the society for the freedom to do what they believe is right, even by going outside of the law. But in going outside of the law they are taking back for themselves a basic responsibility for the order of society, which they had hitherto reposed in the state and the law. They are facing the issue of ultimate personal responsibility for society and the needs of others as we have faced it in the houses of hospitality and the Catholic Worker movement.

These are some of the implications of civil disobedience; of recognizing that the majority of citizens organized in the state, have failed man so badly, that we must struggle to build a whole new way of life that will be able to be human. I remember how often Ammon Hennacy has spoken of the people who were “pacifists between wars,” which he says is like being “vegetarians between meals,” and now it is possible to speak of those who oppose the war but pay their phone tax at “pacifists between telephone calls,” because with each ten-cent telephone call another penny joins the stream of Federal revenue that flows inexorably to Vietnam. It is true, friends, that with a first small step like phone-tax refusal, we are trying to coax people down the primrose path to the one-man revolution. The future will be different only if we change our lives. The act is small, but the meaning is large: this war is not our war, and we are willing to struggle to be on the side of life.

In the October 1969 edition, Karl Meyer explained in-depth how to stop income tax withholding by claiming excessive dependents and how tax redirection could be used to nourish alternative institutions. (This would not be good advice to follow today, as the IRS has new punitive tools at its disposal.)

Through Effective Tax Resistance:

A Fund for Mankind

By Karl Meyer

Let us speak of a clearcut solution to two prevailing ethical concerns which are shared by many stable, wage-earning citizens who are in the peace movement today. On the one hand, we see a perverse system of national priorities which devotes most of our federal tax contributions to militaristic purposes which we abhor. We want our money to be used positively to fulfill social needs. On the other hand, we see young men of draft age resisting war and conscription concretely by refusing to participate, and suffering the consequences: imprisonment or exile. We wish to support them and to align ourselves with them in a real way.

Let me affirm that it would be very practicable for us to get together in our own resistance movement to prevent the conscription of our money by the military and to create a Fund for Mankind to support the things we believe in and provide mutual aid in the difficulties that might come as a consequence of our resistance.

The Vietnam War may draw towards a conclusion in the months to come, yet we have already been warned by spokesmen of the government, if not by the history of the last twenty-five years, not to expect huge amounts of money to be freed for the solution of domestic problems. There are plenty of military boondoggles waiting in the wings, promising that military expenditures will command the stage for many years to come. We should either seize our destiny in our own hands or stop crying about our involuntary complicity in the militarization of society.

I promise to show how we can stop paying for militarism and instead pay into an alternative fund and use it according to our own moral and political judgments.

At the outset, we must directly contradict the widespread notion that refusal to pay federal income tax is merely a form of personal witness and a purification of conscience, which because of inherent obstacles cannot emerge as a general action of resistance to the Vietnam War, militarism, and imperialism. Instead, let us affirm that tax resistance can be the most promising basis for a movement of constructive social action, as well as resistance to the evils of war and the wastefulness of the arms race.

Right away we come to the heart of the issue, because people say, “Our taxes are withheld at the source and paid by our employers without our consent.” This is the fallacy which must be resolutely laid to rest. Your consent is given whenever you fill out and sign a new W-4 Employees Withholding Exemption Certificate. The proper use of this form and of the early income-tax return are the keys to effective tactics of widespread tax resistance.

Let me therefore outline these tactics for Everyman in nine easy steps:

1. Obtain a new W-4 form from your employer. On lines 4 and 5 claim as many extra dependents as is necessary to prevent the withholding of any tax (ten or twenty or five hundred thousand or thirty-five million if you wish). Sign the statement, “I certify that the number of withholding exemptions claimed on this certificate does not exceed the number to which I am entitled.” (Entitled by whom? We cannot have a moral revolution as long as we supinely acknowledge that we are entitled to do only what can be drained by the Internal Revenue Code and Regulations. We must explicitly reject the standards and definitions specified by a blind bureaucracy and instead affirm definitions that spring from our own consciousness of human solidarity. We must affirm that our obligation to the victims of United States militarism entitles us to claim as many exemptions as may be necessary to prevent the payment of taxes in our name.) Submit the new form to your employer. He is not responsible under law for the legality or accuracy of our claim, nor is he authorized to alter your claim. He is advised, but not required by law, to report to the Internal Revenue Service if he believes that your claim exceeds the number of dependents to which you are entitled.¹ It is only if you fill out no W-4 form that he may withhold the taxes without your consent.²

2. Write a letter to the I.R.S. stating that five hundred thousand American soldiers are depending on you to bring them home, or that thirty-five million Vietnamese are depending on you to stop supporting the war, that consequently you cannot accept the narrow definitions of human interdependence specified by I.R.S. regulations, that you therefore affirm your right to claim enough exemptions to forestall the collection of war taxes, and you have recently filed a new W-4 form with your employer in accord with this affirmation. This will put you on record as an open and principled tax resister, and may provide you with some defense in case of prosecution for making a fraudulent claim, since fraud implies an element of concealment, deception, and bad faith.³ But in writing to them, I would advise you not to name your employer, since this would only facilitate possible attempts by the I.R.S. to harass or intimidate you or your employer.

   Taking these first two steps should forestall the withholding of any tax from your wages.

3. On April 15^th (fifteen and a half months after the beginning of your no-tax year) you are required by law to file an income-tax return. File and complete an honest return, but don’t do it the way they want it. On line 3B of form 1040 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, enter the same number of dependents previously claimed on your W-4 form (if thirty-five million, enter that number on line 3B). Attach a schedule stating the moral grounds of your claim: the universal interdependency of man. For line 11C, multiply the total number of exemptions claimed by six hundred dollars. Fill out the rest of the form, showing no tax owed, and send it in.

4. Wait a few more taxless months while the I.R.S. gets around to figuring out your form, disallowing your numerous exemptions, and sending you a “proposed adjustment” of your income tax liability. You have another taxless month to request a District Conference to discuss the “proposed adjustment.”⁴

5. If agreement is not reached at the District Conference, you may appeal to the Appellate Division of the Regional Commissioner’s Office.⁴

   All steps up to this point can be easily taken without the aid of an attorney and without much cost or inconvenience to yourself.

6. If agreement cannot be reached with the Appellate Division, a statutory notice of deficiency will be sent to you; you will then have ninety days to appeal to the Tax Court of the United States, but if the I.R.S. believes that assessment and collection of the tax deficiency will be jeopardized by delay, it may proceed to assess and collect the tax in the meantime, pending your appeal to the Tax Court and decision by it, and any further appeals to the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, if you choose to pursue such appeals. So a number of time-consuming bureaucratic steps must be gone through before the I.R.S. can make its final assessment of the tax due and begin the process of attempting to collect. The whole process must be repeated for each taxable year. I do not see how the I.R.S. can reach the collection stage in less than two years from the date when you first began to frustrate the withholding of taxes.

   Even if you chicken out and pay up at that point, you will have cost them more than it was worth and made them wait at least two years to get their money. But above all, you will have expressed concrete convictions clearly and registered effective short-term resistance against any particular war or Defense Department program that happens to be the primary current target of the resistance movement. If you want to go beyond this and keep struggling, as I have done, there are further effective steps to prevent the collection of the assessments by wage attachment or seizure of assets:

7. Take your cash out of banks you have used in the past. If you have so much money that you have to be afraid of keeping it in the mattress, you should probably start thinking of what that money says about your aspirations towards human brotherhood. In the meantime, you could distribute it into several banks you have not used before and be careful not to write checks in payment of bills whose payment could easily be traced by the I.R.S. (such as telephone and utility bills). I have used an account in this way for several years, but I could do without it easily enough.

8. If you are not strongly tied to your current place of employment, you can switch jobs as soon as the I.R.S. arrives to collect from your wages by levy and take a few simple precautions to make it a little difficult for the I.R.S. to discover your new place of employment. They are so bogged down and incompetent that it doesn’t take much to throw them off the trail for several years. I changed jobs in September 1967, and they haven’t found out my new job yet, though they have tried through numerous visits, phone calls, notes left under the door, and other perfunctory attempts.

9. In preparation for the eventual confrontation, you can begin early to have real property which you use, such as houses and automobiles, owned and registered in the names of persons who will not be liable for payment of income taxes.

These and similar steps have worked for me and for a number of other individuals around the country for many, many years. I have used this method of tax resistance, or variations, of it, for the last ten years. In that time, I have paid no federal income tax of any significance. I have devoted the greater part of my total income to sharing with other people through Catholic Worker Houses of Hospitality. The I.R.S. is many years and hundreds of dollars behind in its attempts to collect from me, and has indeed collected nothing from me so far, though it has prepared returns for the years 1962, 1963, and 1965, and is trying to collect over eleven hundred dollars from me.

Here is the strength of tax resistance. If you don’t play by their rules, the cost of collecting will in many cases exceed the successful collections. The process of assessing and collecting taxes in the face of intelligent resistance is an immensely complicated bureaucratic operation, which frequently gets bogged down for incredible periods of time. The due process of law involved in the arrest and conviction of an induction refuser under Selective Service law is child’s play when compared to the due process involved in the collection of taxes from the intelligent tax refuser. So we have an effective tool at hand for resisting the demands of war and the arms race, if we will only seize the courage to act.

Positive Side

Now we turn to the constructive side of this action. If we pool all of the tax money that we did not pay in locally administered funds, we can create a model for a future in which men can regain direct control of their common institutions and effectively deny their consent to governmental programs they believe to be evil.

In each community or region we can set up a common fund. Each contributor will have one vote, as in a cooperative. The members will meet from time to time to set priorities and guidelines for administering the fund and to elect a committee to administer it according to their guidelines.

Part of the fund can be held as a reserve, which can be invested in low-interest loans to socially useful projects. In case of needs these loans can be liquidated in order to compensate members of the fund, up to the amount of their contribution, for personal losses and needs resulting from successful tax collections by the I.R.S. The reserve funds can also be used to provide legal defense for members who might be prosecuted under the tax laws, and to provide aid for the families of those who might be convicted and imprisoned or suffer other needs as a result of conscientious tax refusal. Thus through mutual aid the members of the fund will be protected from personal hardships arising from their stand, and together they can develop a most valuable sense of community and solidarity, that could immeasurably strengthen the whole peace movement.

Assuming that successful collections by the I.R.S. would always lag far behind the ongoing contributions to the fund, the greater part of receipts could be disbursed in the form of direct grants for ail kinds of socially useful organizations and projects. Assuming that the federal-income-tax contributions of most people in the movement probably far exceed their voluntary political, organizational, and charitable contributions, we could expect that the tax alternative funds could become one of the most substantial sources of money for the projects and purposes in which we most strongly believe. But beyond that we could hope that our experience in mutual aid through these cooperative funds would bear fruit in the development of ashrams and communities for closer economic and social cooperation; for it is when our constructive action and our resistance to evil become for real that we will see the need and value of mutual aid and begin to create cooperative alternatives within the competitive society in which we live.

If we ignore or neglect the great potential of tax resistance joined to constructive action, we must be deaf to history and blind to experience.

Deaf to history. Do we not know that tax resistance has been one of the greatest sources and strategies of revolutionary movements throughout history? Has not history shown that taxation is a process requiring the general consent and cooperation of the populace? Has it not been shown that when numbers of people reject a government by withdrawing their consent from the elaborate bureaucratic process of taxation, that government is in deep trouble? Did not the French Revolution begin with tax resistance? Was not the Estates General called into session by the King because he found it impossible to raise sufficient revenue for the operation of his government? Was not tax resistance the slogan and rallying cry of the American Revolution: “Taxation without representation is tyranny!”? Does not the Boston Tea Party, an act of resistance to taxation, stand in our historical tradition as a model for the actions of the Baltimore Four, the Catonsville Nine, the Boston Two, the Milwaukee Fourteen, the D.C. Nine, and the Chicago Fifteen? Did not Thoreau fashion the cornerstone of American resistance theory out of his own experience as a tax resister? Was not Gandhi’s largest and most significant campaign of civil disobedience, the Salt March, based on the strategy of tax resistance?

Blind to experience. Can we not see what the I.R.S. knows full well: that even where the public gives general consent to the process of taxation it is always and everywhere a grudging and tentative consent, a resentful and querulous consent, a fragile consent that must always be nursed and safeguarded by positive public relations? Why has the I.R.S. trodden so lightly in prosecuting principled tax refusers, usually concentrating instead on ineffectual attempts at collection? Is it not because there exists among the public at large a greater reservoir of grievance, a potential of sympathy for tax resisters, and, what is more, a vast subliminal potential for tax resistance and evasion, that only needs to be aroused by news of widespread tax resistance?

Let us learn from the experience of the draft-resistance movement and the telephone-tax-refusal campaign, a few years ago, many people regarded draft refusal as a personal witness of the solitary conscience. Today it has taken on the dimensions of a social movement. It is, however, restricted by the narrow age and sex range of those who are subject to conscription, and even more restricted by the narrowness of the draft as a single focus of action.

In the telephone-tax-refusal campaign we measured the potential dimensions of a tax-resistance movement. In the summer of 1966, we started the campaign for nonpayment of the ten-per-cent federal telephone excise tax, which had just been restored by Congress explicitly to help in meeting the rising costs of the Vietnam War. The July 1969 issue of WIN magazine quotes from a Wall Street Journal story reporting that eighteen thousand people refused to pay their telephone tax last year. This resistance tactic caught on quickly and spread rapidly with little organizational effort, because it was a direct and simple action which any telephone subscriber could easily carry out. But after flaring up briefly, interest in this tactic gradually subsided, though thousands no doubt continue to refuse to pay the tax. Enthusiasm for the action could not be maintained, because it was not resistance for real. It was, rather, the first token of a spirit of resistance, which at the time could find no practical channel for deeper development.

When we can combine real war tax resistance with the tremendous constructive potential of a Fund for Humanity, we will have raised a banner to which all honest and courageous men of conscience can repair.

---

Note: I want to acknowledge the contributions of Brad Lyttle, Sidney Lens, and several young members of the draft-resistance movement whose names are unknown to me. Recent discussions with them helped greatly in stimulating and formulating the ideas for the article, which has also been distributed in mimeographed form by the founders of the Chicago Area Alternative Fund (C.A.A.F), 1209 West Farwell, Chicago, Illinois 60626. (Tel: 764-3620). We have begun. Join us!

Notes and References

1. Internal Revenue Regulations, Paragraph 31.3401 (e)-1 (b) — “The employer is not required to ascertain whether or not the number of withholding exemptions claimed is greater than the number of withholding exemptions to which the employee is entitled. If, however, the employer has reason to believe that the number of withholding exemptions claimed by the employee is greater than the number to which such employee is entitled, the district director should be so advised.”

2. Internal Revenue Regulations, Paragraph 31.3401 (e)-1 (a) — “…If no such certificate is in effect, the number of withholding exemptions claimed shall be considered to be zero…”

3. Internal Revenue Code, Section 7201. ATTEMPT TO EVADE OR DEFEAT TAX. “Any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”

   Internal Revenue Code, Section 7205. FRAUDULENT WITHHOLDING EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE OR FAILURE TO SUPPLY INFORMATION: “Any individual required to supply information to his employer under section 3402 who willfully supplies false or fraudulent information, or who willfully falls to supply information thereunder which would require an increase in the tax to be withheld under section 3402, shall, in lieu of any other penalty provided by law (except the penalty provided by section 6682), upon conviction thereof, be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” (Section 3402 is the section which provides for withholding of income taxes.)

4. INSTRUCTIONS — Unagreed Income, Estate, or Gift Tax Cases — U.S. Treasury Department — Internal Revenue Service — Publication No. 5 (Rev. 8-64)

5. Internal Revenue Code, Section 6861. Jeopardy Assessments of Income, Estate, and Gift Taxes.

Meyer had a followup in the January 1970 issue:

Clarification On Tax Withholding

By Karl Meyer
December 12, 1969

Dear Mike and Allen:

I was pleased to receive your inquiry about our “Fund for Mankind, Through Effective Tax Resistance” (Catholic Worker, Oct.–Nov. 1969). Yours is one of dozens of serious inquiries from all over the country, and the fourth so far from the Minneapolis area alone. Jim Dunn (19 Sidney Place S.E., Minneapolis, Minnesota) has already started an alternative fund and has reprinted my article as a leaflet. Dennis Richter (Hope House, 2603 14th Ave. South) has begun by claiming forty million exemptions on his W-4 Withholding Exemption Certificate. This has tremendous educational value, but we don’t know yet the effective results of this experiment. One person in Chicago tried this mass approach and it did not work. He claimed three and a half billion dependents, the entire population of Spaceship Earth. His employers, on the advice of their tax attorneys, rejected his W-4 form, on the grounds that it was not correctly filled out because it would be impossible under the rules to have that number of legally qualified exemptions — a trenchant argument we must confess. They also pointed out that their payroll computer program could not handle that number of exemptions. Two digits, or a maximum of 99, would be all the computer could handle. This leaves him nowhere, since his only recourse would be to appeal to the Internal Revenue Service or the courts for support of his right to claim three and a half billion, and it is obvious enough that he would get no support from that quarter.

Does my article give the impression that I advocate claiming such great numbers of exemptions as a practical step, or that I myself have used this approach and succeeded? If it does, that impression should be corrected before it leads us down the blind alley of ineffectual protest. I myself have always claimed the minimum number of exemptions necessary to prevent the withholding of tax (between six and twelve in my case) and the same modest approach is used by all those I know of who are successfully using the exemption method of tax resistance at present. The idea of claiming hundreds of thousands, millions or billions of dependents makes for a beautiful protest and a glorious expression of fraternal solidarity. I introduced this idea in my article, and I certainly hope that a certain number of bold souls like Dennis will experiment with it; but I proposed it with tongue in cheek, and I would be the first to predict that it will not work in very many cases. Most employers, on their own initiative or on the advice of I.R.S., will probably reject such a W-4, and those that don’t may fire you. It would be a fine educational protest, but if the idea is protest, that could also be expressed by picketing the personnel office during your lunch hour to ask them to stop withholding taxes.

If the purpose is actually to prevent the withholding of tax, the most practical way to proceed is to claim the minimum number of exemptions necessary to achieve that objective! This number can be found by dividing your weekly salary by $13.50, or dividing your projected annual salary by $700, or by consulting the tables and rules in Circular E, Employers Tax Guide, available to the public at your local office of I.R.S.

The minimum number of exemptions necessary for most people will be between six and twenty. If your employer should question the number you claim, you may wish to save him the embarrassment of being implicated in your action by simply stating, “This is the number of exemptions to which I believe I am entitled.” Since you are the person responsible for the number which you claim, it is not necessarily incumbent on you to offer your employer a more elaborate explanation. In our group, some people have explained to their employers the entire basis of their claim; others have filed the new W-4 with their employer without further explanation; some have written to I.R.S., or other officials of government, stating the entire basis of their claim; others have taken the action without informing the state directly. These choices must be made on the basis of personal inclinations and circumstances of employment.

You ask about the chances of prosecution for tax evasion or fraud. No principled tax refuser has been indicted or prosecuted for violation of tax laws within my memory or knowledge. A few have been imprisoned briefly for contempt of court for refusing to reveal information about their income and assets. The I.R.S. has concentrated exclusively on attempts at assessment and collection, rather than prosecution. With the rapid development of this campaign, I predict that this policy will be changed. If pressed to do so, I could name a man whom I believe to be a prime candidate for aggressive prosecution. But it would be impossible for me to predict what pattern of criminal prosecution may emerge as this campaign grows and develops. I do predict that many people in this movement will eventually be subjects of intensive efforts by I.R.S. to assess and collect income taxes that they have not paid. Ten years ago I popularized the aphorism: “If you can’t do time, don’t commit crime,” which was taught me by Marshal Raab as he drove me to the penitentiary. Today I am in a position to coin a new variation of this maxim for our time: “If you can’t stand heat, don’t put your hand in the fire.”

If people want to start out easy and test the temperature before they go all the way they might begin by not paying the ten-percent federal excise tax on telephone service or they might try claiming just one extra withholding tax exemption. Most important of course is to band together in small local alternative-fund groups for mutual aid and the sharing of experiences.

Over the years I have developed quite a tolerance for heat of all kinds so I was not dismayed on Halloween when Agent Roy Suzuki of the I.R.S. telephoned at my place of employment, which he had at long last discovered, and very graciously demanded payment of $46.60 in taxes, penalties, and interest for the year 1965, a small part of a bill for more than a thousand dollars, going back to 1962 that I.R.S. has been unsuccessfully trying to collect for a long time. After I stated that I would not pay he came over immediately and served my employers with a levy against my wages which they reluctantly honored by deducting $48.60 from wages due to me. These events inspired the composition of the following ballad, which is currently leading the hit parade of the tax-resistance movement:

Some Enchanted Taxmen

Some enchanted evening
You may meet a stranger,
You may see him come to you
Across the crowded room,
Then pull put his badge
And ask for your wage;
If you don’t go along,
He will not argue long.
He will be a taxman,
He will be insistent,
He will bring a levy
To place against your wage,
And when he is done
He’ll go back to his boss,
And give a report like this:

Suzuki:— Who would believe it,
Who would say it’s so?
I found him at Follett’s,
I collected dough.

His boss:— Oh, Suzuki,
How did you know? Now that you’ve found him,
Never let him go!

Suzuki:— Forty-six dollars,
All for the war,
I’ll go back again soon,
I will grab some more.

His boss:— Oh, Suzuki,
Try going slow,
Don’t scare him off too fast,
Don’t let him go.

Suzuki:— l have worked so patiently,
I have tried so long,
My, but that man’s
Conscience is strong.

Boss:— Don’t get sentimental,
Remember he’s your foe,
Now that you’ve found him,
Never let him go.

Suzuki:— I’ll go back tomorrow,
Shortly after dawn,
I’ll levy on his wage again;
But he will be gone.

Boss:— Buck up, Suzuki,
Don’t let it get you down,
We have lots of agents,
Snooping round the town.

Suzuki:— They will never nail him,
They’ll never collect,
Why should we waste our time,
Breaking our necks?

Boss:— The war must go on you know
And we must be paid,
The arms race must be financed
And profits be made.

Suzuki:— We will never make it
With guys like that Meyer;
Why not quit and go to work;
Our proceeds would be higher.

Boss:— Roy, that’s not the spirit
Of I.R.S., you know;
Once you have found one.
Never let him go!

A few days later I quit my job, and since then I have been earning part of our livelihood by part-time and irregular labor, while spending most of my time on the important work of developing the tax-resistance campaign. I have to thank Roy Suzuki for having given me the incentive and the opportunity to do this. To coordinate a countrywide campaign for tax resistance and to provide literature and counseling we have established a center called War Tax Resistance/Midwest (1339 North Mohawk St., Chicago, Illinois 60610) which is sponsored by the Nonviolent Training and Action Center, the Chicago Area Draft Registers and the Chicago Catholic Worker. We will have a basic leaflet based on my article in the Oct.–Nov. 1969 CW, as well as reprints of the article itself. For a single copy of each, send us a stamped, self-addressed envelope. For quantities the price will be a dollar for fifty, or two dollars for a hundred, plus a dollar for each additional hundred in one shipment. We hope that people will send a few extra dollars to help with the organizing costs and that new tax resisters and alternative funds will earmark a small percentage of their tax savings to contribute to the organizing work.

The February 1970 issue reported on the death of Ammon Hennacy on January 14. Ernest Bromley added a tribute, which included this summary of his tax resistance activity:

I, like so many others, knew Ammon by reputation long before I met him in person. He was one of the pacifist tax refusers during World War Two, at a time when I could count them on the fingers of one hand. He was in Arizona during those years, working as a day laborer in the fields. To the few of us who made up the Tax Refusal Committee of Peacemakers, which began in the spring of 1948, he is memorable, not only because the number was still very small but mainly because he was simple, direct and dramatic. He saw that the government got none of his tax at the source (through withholding), he refused the total amount of income tax, he took steps so that the tax man could not garnishee money from his employer, and he went straight to the tax man and to the people with the message that he would not pay for the weapons or the soldiers. He was basic, cryptic, humorous. When the tax collector asked him if he thought he could change the world to his point of view, he answered, “Of course not. but I’m damn sure it won’t change me.” Then, referring to his contest with the government, he said, “Every day I win and every day the government loses.”

He once told a tax man, “Peter could return to his nets, but Matthew could not return to his tax collecting.” It was in World War One, while doing time in Atlanta Penitentiary for opposing the war, that he read the Bible and became a Christian. He was also turning from socialism to anarchism. It was not however, until the early 1950’s that he joined a church. Soon he wrote his first book. The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist. Later he revised this book, calling it in the new form The Book of Ammon. While in Arizona he wrote a column in the Catholic Worker, entitled “Life at Hard Labor.” He managed by doing day labor in the fields and irrigation ditches, to contribute financially to the education of his two daughters by his first marriage.

After moving to New York in the early 50’s he became one of the associate editors of the Catholic Worker with Dorothy Day. In 1961 he moved to Salt Lake City and began a "House of Hospitality.” Borrowing the language of Robert Frost in one of his poems “Build Soil — A Political Pastoral,” Ammon spoke early and often of the “one-man revolution — the only revolution that is coming.” He felt that the only way to change society is for each to become a radical and responsible person. He detested dependence on government, state, institutions. He wished to live as the early Christians did. He did not join organizations or participate much in conferences or committees. Most of the actions he took were solitary ones.

After leaving Arizona he travelled several weeks of each year, going to homes of friends. Innumerable opportunities opened up to him to talk to small groups of people. Many young idealists got their inspiration from a first contact with Ammon Hennacy. He was always quick in tongue and caustic in comment. He could state his views briefly. Once when asked why he refused to pay Federal taxes, he said “Jesus wouldn’t make atom bombs. Why should I pay for them?”

And Karl Meyer wrote, in part:

[I]n thirteen years, I spent only a few hours in his company; so I know nothing of him that is not amply recorded in the Book of Ammon and his columns. The only original thing that I can tell is what he has written in my spirit.

In closing I want to remind you that Ammon wouldn’t pay taxes that go for war. In his last letter to me (November 17, 1969) he wrote, “I think your idea of claiming a million dependents is o.k. for a joke between you and the tax man, but to consider it for a group of people is not being a bit realistic. Hardly half a dozen in this country would have nerve enough to do it for fear of losing their jobs.”

That was the main fault Ammon had: he never had faith that other people would be radicals, would change their lives and live the revolution. But I remember a pipsqueak boy of twenty once, who didn’t want to lose his job, who wanted to take bail and get a lawyer and a long continuance. And one summer day that boy went down to Chrystie Street, and that was the day that he met Hennacy.

That’s why I have faith that a lot of people are not going to go on paying taxes for another five years of national murder; and anyone who really wants to stop can send me a couple of stamps for our leaflet entitled “Common Sense for Every Concerned Taxpayer — You Can Stop Paying War Taxes Now,” or send a dollar for fifty copies.

Today, some excerpts from The Catholic News Archive concerning tax resistance in 1973. First, from the January 1973 Catholic Worker:

“Peacemaker” Refuses Taxes

By Ernest Bromley et al.

The federal government’s Internal Revenue Service on December 6 began proceedings against Gano Peacemakers, Inc. and against Ernest and Marion Bromley for taxes and penalties amounting to over $30,000, for the years of 1966 through 1971. The address for both is 10206 Sylvan Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio. The locality is on the map as Gano.

As many people are aware, Gano Peacemakers, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation established by the Bromleys and others soon after they went to Gano as a community in 1956. It has held property, but has never operated a program, had any income from work or contributions, or had a treasury. In 1958, the mailing address of the Movement of Peacemakers, together with its organ, The Peacemaker, was brought to Gano, as Ernest Bromley had accepted responsibility for circulation and editing. The Peacemaker files were brought from Yellow Springs, the financial records were brought from the former business address in Cleveland, and the sharing fund from Oberlin. As is well known by all volunteers who have kept the records and everyone close to the Peacemaker Movement, The Peacemaker finances have continued entirely apart from the finances of the people at the house in Gano.

False Information

IRS arrived at this figure through the assertion that the Peacemaker Movement and its organ, The Peacemaker, housed at that address, are synonymous with Gano Peacemakers, Inc., which holds title to the house where the Bromleys live. The erroneous claim, expressed in notations and figures on numerous IRS forms, is that the finances of the Peacemaker Movement are one and the same as the corporation holding title to the property. Figures on these forms claim that all subscriptions to The Peacemaker and contributions to the Movement are income to Gano Peacemakers, Inc. These IRS tables and figures, received at the house in Gano, go so far as to assert that all recipients of checks from The Peacemaker bank account are employees of Gano Peacemakers, Inc., and assessments are listed for FUTA, FICA and payroll income tax which they claim Peacemakers should have withheld from all those receiving checks. People said to be employees are named in the documents; most are the families of imprisoned war objectors who received monthly checks for their period of need. Apparently, IRS took these from copies of canceled checks kept by the Farmers and Citizens Bank, Trotwood, Ohio.

Whether IRS has made this move with the calculated intention of disrupting and diminishing the Peacemaker Movement and The Peacemaker is, of course, not known. It should be stated that the Bromleys and others who refuse taxes for war have consistently refused to give IRS any information—partly because they wanted to make collection as difficult as possible, even though the amount might be very small—and partly because they wanted to offer total noncooperation with the machinery of a racist and murdering government apparatus. Having gathered information which is totally-false as the basis for a claim, IRS should not be permitted to proceed in ignorance of the total misrepresentation they have made with regard to activities at Gano.

If IRS does proceed on the basis it has claimed, no assets called Peacemaker will be immune to its seizure at any time, be it a checking account where subscriptions are deposited or funds contributed for aid to imprisoned war objectors’ families. Anything considered to be the Movement’s can be grabbed. If that should happen, Peacemaker would find other ways to continue to communicate with each other and meet their obligations to families of imprisoned war objectors.

Claim Against the Bromleys

Ernest and Marion Bromley’s nonpayment of taxes for war antedates the founding of Peacemakers. They have for many years made public their stand against paying taxes for war, and have refused to give IRS any information. It is rather ironic that after making the house at Gano available without charge for The Peacemaker editing and circulation work, they are now being accused of receiving income from the operation of the Peacemaker Movement.

What Response to Make?

It is not likely that either individual refusers or any persons acting for Peacemakers will begin to fill out tax forms, open its mailing lists to IRS, show names of contributors and do any of the things people do who are merely looking for a better deal from IRS. Even if such cooperation were acceptable to Peacemakers, it is no guarantee that IRS would accept the explanations. And one thing quite repugnant to Peacemakers is the thought of applying to IRS for a right to continue.

There is the possibility that IRS is proceeding without knowledge of how far-fetched their claims are. Those who know the principles on which Peacemaker finances are handled may wish to write to the IRS accountant who signed the papers. He is Samuel T. Lay, IRS, P.O. Box 476, Cincinnati, OH, 45201.

Such a communication would be for the purpose of informing the IRS that their claims against the Peacemaker Movement are erroneous. It would be particularly helpful if those knowing how the sharing fund operates would inform the IRS that those receiving checks are not employees either of Peacemakers or Gano Peacemakers, Inc.; that they have not performed any services for Peacemakers; and that they may have never had any other connection with Peacemakers than receiving financial aid during a resister’s prison sentence.

There is no true basis for a collection in the material IRS has assembled. It may be that they will acknowledge this fact if they receive information from those who know how incorrect their assumptions are. If letters go to IRS, it would be helpful if copies are sent to The Peacemaker.

Chuck Matthei reports that the Peacemakers’ winter continuation meeting in Indianapolis discussed mounting an educational campaign about tax refusal in the Cincinnati area. They also foresee a non-violent, direct action response to the war-tax machine if an eviction or auction takes place. Chuck stressed that the action would involve a no bail/no fine commitment from participants.

Although the Peacemakers wish to make refusal to support war, not concern to protect property, the issue in their tax case, they are collecting pledges of assistance for the Bromleys, should the need arise.

For more information, or to participate, contact:

The Peacemaker
10208 Sylvan Av.
Cincinnati, Ohio 45241

The National Catholic Reporter reported in its 5 January 1973 issue:

American Telephone and Telegraph reports that 22,000 people refused to pay the telephone excise tax in protest against the Vietnam war in 1972, up from 17,000 last year and 12,000 in 1970. The Internal Revenue Service wants AT&T to disconnect all those phones, but AT&T says tax problems are IRS’ business. Apparently, IRS wants as little to do with 22,000 prosecutions as AT&T wants to do with the $200,000 a month It would cost to disconnect protesters’ phones.

The 2 February issue of that paper, toward the end of a larger article about peace movement retooling toward the tail end of the Vietnam War, noted:

Bob Calvert of War Tax Resistance said his organization will continue to urge tax resistance in protest against the large amount of the federal budget — more than half — which goes into the military.

He said local tax resistance centers are preparing reports describing the amount of federal taxes taken out of each state, the amount returned through revenue sharing, the real needs of the state and the amount of money from the state which goes into the military.

Mike DeGregory penned an argument for war tax resistance for the March 1973 issue of Catholic Worker:

Render to God: The Imperative to Resist

By Mike DeGregory

“There are two things I’ve got to do in this world — die and pay taxes.” This sentiment presents a serious theological problem for the modern world: equating the demands of the nation state with those of God. Given the violence and militarism of our times, the problem becomes a question of idolatry. As such, the payment of taxes must be examined with all its implications.

God and State

Since biblical times there has existed a tension between allegiance to God and allegiance to the state. Periodically, acts of resistance were made as a witness affirming God as the source of life in opposition to the state. Recently this tension has been manifested in this country when hundreds of thousands of Americans, motivated by belief in a higher authority, refused allegiance to the state. Draft resistance to the Vietnam war was widespread, and the war tax resistance movement reached a high point.

Now, however, that the ceasefire accords have been signed and American troops will be withdrawn from Vietnam, many consider war tax refusal an inappropriate anachronism. Such a view is a misunderstanding of the nature of war and tax resistance. Mr. Nixon has repeatedly said, “Peace, peace with honor,” but there is no peace.

The Vietnam war continues with intense fighting. It is the Vietnamese people who suffer. Over 200,000 refugees have been created since the ceasefire began, while American planes daily bomb Cambodia, and frequently bomb Laos.

Outside Indochina, a similar “peace” prevails. America continues to arm other smaller nations for fratricidal wars, most recently in a $2 billion agreement with Iran. And America’s nuclear overkill continues to increase, as does the military budget. This is peace only in an Orwellian sense.

William James has described the true nature of this “peace” in his The Moral Equivalent of War:

“Peace” in military mouths is a synonym for “war expected”… Every up-to-date dictionary should say that “peace” and “war” mean the same thing, now in posse, now in actu. It may even be reasonably said that the intensely sharp competitive preparation for war by the nations is the real war, permanent, unceasing; and that the battles are only a sort of public verification of the mastery gained during the “peace” interval.

No Mere Protest

The existence of perpetual war makes war tax resistance relevant and necessary. Tax resistance is not just another form of protest. It is a refusal to participate in something, namely war. It involves a change of worldviews, a conversion. It demands a commitment to a new way of living. It can be a truly religious response, stemming from moral obligation rather than expediency. In this moral sense, it is for everyone, not just the courageous few. For in modern society, how we use our money and how we relate to money determines what kind of lives we lead and the kind of persons we are.

For many Christians, this decision of how to relate to the issue of taxes is easily answered: pay them, for Christ said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”

The spirit of the Gospel is peace and nonviolence. A biblical response to the “Render to Caesar” passage does not mean blind obedience to the state. Rather, it suggests the responsibility to judge the “things” of Caesar in light of the “things” of God. The essential part of the passage is the latter clause: “Render to God the things that are God’s.” Jesus intended no equality between God and Caesar. Therefore, before rendering to Caesar one must judge if the things of Caesar are compatible with the things of God. More specifically, today we must ask: is the payment of an income tax of which more than 50% finances the works of war, compatible with the things of God who desires from us the works of mercy? We are faced with the moral imperative of examining war and our role in it as taxpayers. In conscience we must decide whether to pay or not.

The New C.O.

In the modern process of violence, our technological society increasingly replaces men with machines. The “big business” of modem war relies more and more on citizens’ money than on their bodies. In light of this, it becomes essential that tax resisters be seen as the new conscientious objectors to war, withholding their financial as well as their bodily resources.

In the past, draft resistance has been seen as the refusal to place the pinch of incense on the altar of a false god. Tax resistance deals more fundamentally with this same idolatry. For tax money is the very gold of which the false idols of war are made. War tax resistance is an alternative to this idolatry.

Some will object that war tax resistance, even with its corresponding alternate life funds, is ineffective. This is perhaps correct, but as I see it, irrelevant. Too often actions are undertaken simply for effect. The words of Dietrich Bonhoeffer sum up the effectiveness of war tax resistance: “One asks, what is to come? Another, what is right? And that is the difference between the slave and the free man.”

“When it becomes the ‘sacred duty’ of a man to commit sin, one no longer knows how he should live,” said Reinhold Schneider. “There remains nothing else for him to do but bear individual witness alone. And where such witness is, there is the Kingdom of God.” In this is the effectiveness of war tax resistance.

One of the best (and shortest) rationales for war tax resistance is Peter Maurin’s statement, “The future will be different if we make the present different.” If we continue to pay for war and the instruments of war, will we ever have peace?

---

(Ed. Note: For more information about tax resistance, write War Tax Resistance, 912 E. 31^st St., Kansas City, Mo. 64109.)

The National Catholic News Service included this among its dispatches on 18 April 1973:

Five Anti-War Priests Refuse to Pay Part of Income Tax

Pittsburgh (NC)— Five priests of the Pittsburgh diocese have filed income tax returns but deducted 20 percent from their taxes which they contend would go to support a “totally immoral war” in Southeast Asia.

“The bombing in Cambodia going on right now is without any foundation in law — let alone morality,” said Father Jack O’Malley, spokesman for the group.

“The Thieu government in South Vietnam holds five of our brother priests as political prisoners because they have dared to speak out against the immoral actions of their government. It is our taxes which is keeping Thieu in power,” Father O’Malley said.

The five priests waited until the deadline day of April 15 to file their tax returns at the Internal Revenue Service office here at noon.

Father O’Malley said the priests recognize that wrong is also being done by the North Vietnamese government. “But that country is not our ally,” he said.

“It is a privilege and duty to pay taxes,” the priest said. “It is likewise a duty to resist evil in conscience. When that evil is done by one’s own government, the duty is no less.”

During Holy Week the five priests prayed for an end to the bombing in Cambodia and an end to fighting and violence by all parties in Southeast Asia.

The other priests taking part in the tax resistance were: Fathers Mark Glasgow, Patrick Fenton, Warren Metzler and Donald McIlvane.

A letter-to-the-editor in the May 1973 Catholic Worker, signed by “Ammon Hennacy House” (Grand Rapids, Michigan), included this paragraph:

At this writing we have just ended a week-end tax resistance conference with about twenty-five people from around the state. We have been promoting tax and draft resistance as part of our nonviolence workshop group Life Force. With the beginnings of a tax resisters’ fund we are seeking an alternative to the violence and exploitation of banking. Also, we are exploring possibilities of an insurance fund. With four active children, we feel the need to be providing them with assurance of medical care in emergencies.

The National Catholic News Service included this among its dispatches on 23 July 1973:

War Resister Gets Tax Refund

Altamont, N.Y. (NC)— Mark Brockley of St. Lucy’s Parish here received a refund check from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for $250.50 for 1972, which was the total amount IRS had withheld from Mark’s wages for the year.

The unusual aspect of Brockley’s case is that he received the refund after claiming his infant niece as a dependent on his 1040 form, knowing that she would not qualify as his dependent under the IRS definition.

Brockley explained in a letter to IRS officials that his niece, who was born the day of the Vietnam cease-fire, “represents all children, whether they be Mexican-American babies born in a migrant farm worker’s tent or Cambodian youths huddled in a village under American attack, who depend on each of us to create a livable world for them to grow up in and inherit.”

An IRS official said that if an audit showed that Brockley had claimed a dependent to which he was not entitled, any tax owed would be subject to normal IRS collection procedures.

Brockley is among a small but growing number of people who resist payment of federal taxes because of conscientious objection to government policies, especially to the large portion of the budget which supports the military.

He is 22 and single and describes himself as having been “gung ho for the war” (in Indo-China) until about his junior year in high school when his feelings began to change. His feelings continued to grow until he was arrested in 1972 for protesting the mining of North Vietnamese harbors.

After a demonstration in support for the Berrigans during their trial for conspiracy, Brockley learned about the war tax resistance. He then took steps to prevent the withholding of taxes from his wages, which is illegal.

“But since the government already had taken over $200 of my money for the year,” he said, “I thought in conscience I should get it back.”

To emphasize that his action was not meant to evade or defraud IRS, Brockley sent the letter explaining his irregular 1040 form. He stated in part, “I intend that the government you represent shall not receive one penny more of my tax money while it continues policies to which I cannot in conscience lend my support.”

Brockley reconciled his duties as a citizen and his tax actions by noting that “people forget that Jesus did not simply answer, yes, when they asked him if you should pay Caesar’s tax. It is well established that when you see a clash between Caesar’s law and the Gospel, the Christian’s allegiance is owed to the Gospel.”

The refunded money, Brockley said, is being donated to the Life Giving Fund. This fund is used to support “groups we consider alternatives to the government’s priorities,” he added. “None of us is interested in tax evasion for personal gain. We’ve given out over $1000 so far.

“Someday maybe I could get some land and be as self-sufficient as possible — so I could keep my income below the taxable level,” he said. “That way I could follow my conscience without having to break the law.”

Mike Cullen, who had come to the United States from Ireland twelve years before, and had founded the Casa Maria Catholic Worker hospitality house in Milwaukee, was deported in September 1973. Press reports (e.g. National Catholic Reporter, 14 September 1973) noted that the judge in the deportation case had “listed the cause of deportation as burning of draft files, interfering with administration of the selective service law, counseling others on conscientious objection, tax resistance, and burning his own draft card.”

Today, some excerpts from The Catholic News Archive concerning tax resistance in 1975

The March 1975 Catholic Worker gave an update on the case the IRS was pursuing against Gano Peacemakers, The Peacemaker magazine, the Peacemakers organization, and Ernest and Marion Bromley:

Bromleys Resist IRS

By Peggy Scherer

On January 31, 1975, two agents of the Internal Revenue Service posted a notice of seizure on the house occupied by Marion and Ernest Bromley, two long time pacifists and advocates of refusal to pay war taxes. The house, located near Cincinnati, Ohio, was seized to pay $24,671.31 the IRS claims is owed them. This claim is a false one, however, even by IRS rules.

The claim is based on banking records of The Peacemaker, the newsletter of the nationwide Peacemaker movement. Records seized were for the period between 1966 and 1971. All money sent to The Peacemaker was spent on printing and mailing out the paper, financing of a few projects, and for the Peacemaker Sharing Fund. The Sharing Fund is used to support families of imprisoned war resisters. Part of the assessment is based on Ernest Bromley’s being an employee, and therefore owing income tax. Checks were made out to Ernest to obtain cash for postage, but he never received payment for work he did. All work on The Peacemaker was and is done without compensation.

The first notices, which began coming in late 1972, claimed that the families who had received money from the Sharing Fund were also employees. This claim was dropped after the IRS received letters from those families denying this charge. Numerous letters were also sent disclaiming that The Peacemaker owed money for income tax and social security for any employees. In spite of this, the IRS has not dropped the largest part of its claim. To compound the injustice, they are making their collection by taking property which does not belong to The Peacemaker, which has no holdings, and no longer has a bank account.

The property being seized is owned by Gano Peacemakers, Inc., a small nonprofit corporation formed in 1952, when Marion and Ernest moved to the community of Gano. There, they and a few others formed a small pacifist community. In 1958, when Ernest became the editor of The Peacemaker, the paper was given office space in the house, and it stayed there until 1973. All finances of the two groups were separate.

Internal Revenue Service made its audit of The Peacemaker records during the period when the IRS’ “Special Services Staff” (SSS) investigated some 3000 groups and 8000 individuals who were antiwar activists. These investigations were kept secret until mid-1973, but recently it has been discovered how a coordinated, government-wide effort was undertaken against antiwar activists and protest groups. The SSS collected information from the Justice Department, the FBI, Army and Air Force Intelligence units, and the Secret Service. Since it is doubtful that an audit of The Peacemaker banking records could legitimately be made for tax gathering purposes, it appears the search was for political motives.

The Bromleys follow the policy of noncooperation with the efforts of government agencies to gather information. They are pacifists, and deplore the huge amounts of money spent on war and preparation for war. They will not contest the case in court, but rely on personal witness and informing people of the facts. Efforts are being made by them and many others to publicize the seizure. Leaflets are being handed out each day at the IRS office in Cincinnati to inform potential buyers of the fraudulence of the seizure. Anyone interested in demanding this injustice be stopped should write or telegraph the District Director, IRS, Federal Office Building, Cincinnati, Ohio. Inform local IRS offices and the media, as well as other individuals.

This seizure is only part of the larger injustice which IRS finances. At present, as for the past number of years, the major percentage of the U.S. budget is spent for “defense” purposes. This country still provides the main support for the oppressive governments in South Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. We supply war materials to countries around the world. The products of our labor should be directed for the good of all into positive, life-building works, not in support of war and preparation for war. Often the argument is raised, “Render unto Caesar…” Yet to contribute willingly to the death and oppression of our fellow humans is not to follow the teachings of Christ. When a government misuses power, then we must withdraw our support in every possible way, building with our own lives a just and equitable society. In our world of many people and limited resources, our energy is needed to concentrate on providing food, shelter, clothing and a caring atmosphere for our fellow creatures.

This is the time of year when IRS concentrates on collecting monies used mainly for destruction. To retain control of our own lives, to curtail the massive war-oriented economies of the United States and other nations, we must make personal witness and say no to paying war taxes. Without financial support, the government could not carry on as it is. Such refusal can lead to prison and harassment by the government. Yet if many of us would refuse, and even fill the prisons, there would be no money to support their work. Though it may be difficult, the reward of acting conscientiously, of asserting our freedom to support only what is right, is great.

For information about others who have refused to pay taxes for war, contact The Peacemaker, 1255 Paddock Hills Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45229, or War Tax Resistance or War Resisters League, both at 339 Lafayette St., N.Y., N.Y. 10012.

By Marion Bromley

In discussing the IRS seizure of the property here in Gano, a young office worker commented to others, “I don’t see why they are just bringing this up now. If they had gone to the IRS right in the beginning, they would have straightened it out.”

The more we become involved in analyzing the way IRS proceeded against Peacemakers, the more we want to strip the IRS of this phony facade of beneficent rectitude.

Many people have advised us to fight it in the courts, and that seems to indicate a confidence in the legal system which we do not share. That system provides protection for the state and protects the property of those who can wield power in that arena. We have no interest in asking one branch of the powerful warmaking state to protect us against the improper activities of another branch.

If IRS is not obliged by public clamor to remove the lien against the property, they will sell it and collect $25,000 (which is not taxes “owed” by anyone) — and that would be a defeat of sorts. But if that happens, after we have done everything we can to prevent it, we hope we can go away from here as whole people and continue our adventures elsewhere. We would be truly defeated if any friends attempted to pay the IRS anything to regain title to the property.

We have had the support of a small but active local group. A vigil has continued daily at the federal building in Cincinnati. We know people responded to the Peacemaker mailing suggesting letters to IRS officials, and there have been small support vigils in other places. We do not want to exaggerate the nature of the IRS attack on Peacemakers and on us as tax refusers. The bulletins of Amnesty International detail every month the horrible oppression of dissenters in many places. Many of these cruel regimes are maintained in power by U.S. money and open or covert military, police and financial assistance.

Our energies now are directed to exposing the arrogant power methods the IRS revealed in dealing with Peacemakers, and in urging the people who learn of this to take some responsibility for their own support of the government which seems to be permanently locking the people into a war system.

Just in the matter of the continuing war in Southeast Asia, we learned through a UPI story, published in Cincinnati on Feb. 13, of Bird and Sons Cos. of Oakland, Cal., which is getting five more C130 planes from the Pentagon to increase the supply flights from Thailand to Cambodia. Owner William Bind told a newsman that the Air Force is using Bird Air “to get around the congressional ban on U.S. military involvement.”

The U.S. budget for the coming fiscal year, presented by Gerald Ford on Feb. 4, provides for an increase in military spending; and the planners announce that they expect to increase federal spending for the military on a rising level for the next five years.

The U.S. seems to be operating a "Permanent War Economy,” to use the title of Seymour Melman’s new book.

We think if enough public clamor is raised about the wholly fraudulent actions of IRS in the matter of seizure of the property of Gano Peacemakers, it might cause IRS to remove the lien — and more important, it would serve the larger purpose of educating the public about the methods of the warfare state.

Ernest Bromley Released

Charges have been dropped against Ernest Bromley, arrested on March 5^th, while leafleting at the IRS Center in Cincinnati. He fasted from food and water, and refused to co-operate with the court proceedings, even refusing legal assistance. Despite weakness from the fast, and injuries incurred during his arrest and incarceration, Ernest Bromley will continue to resist the IRS action.

Eds. note.

The National Catholic News Service put this out over the wires on 24 April 1975:

Priest Says He Not Filing Income Tax Return as Protest

Jersey City, N.J. (NC)— In a letter to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a pacifist priest with a long record of involvement in social causes has stated his intention not to file an income tax return.

Father John P. Egan of St. Boniface’s Church here informed the IRS that he would not file the required tax form as a protest over what he called the “war-making” policies of the U.S. government.

Father Egan admits the protest is symbolic because he is not subject to a tax liability and has not been required to pay a tax for the past five years, because of deductions and donations to charitable causes.

But he said that he feels it is important to subject himself to the penalties imposed for not complying with the tax law in the matter of filing a return because at the time he had torn up his draft card in a previous protest he was exempt from the draft. The maximum penalty for failing to file an income tax form is one year in prison and a $10,000 fine.

Even as he was taking this action Father Egan learned that his conviction on a trespassing charge stemming from a Demonstration on behalf of the United Farm Workers of America (UFWA) was being reversed.

Father Egan and 15 other UFWA supporters were arrested in South Orange, N.J., the past October for a demonstration at a supermarket there. A municipal court verdict was upset as a result of an appeal to Essex County Superior Court.

On April 25 a hearing was to be held in Washington, D.C. in a case stemming from his arrest earlier this year during a protest inside the White House as part of an anti-war demonstration.

Father Egan’s letter to the IRS was reprinted in the July 1975 Catholic Worker:

St. Boniface Church
254 First St.,
Jersey City, N.J. 07302

Sirs:

As April 16, 1975, the last day for filing income tax returns, approaches, let me serve notice on the government that I do not wish to serve its disregard for humans. For the same reason as I ripped up my draft card and registration some time ago, I now refuse to fill out any income tax form.

I choose not to give money to kill. For years, any extra money that could have gone to this government for the purposes of war, I gave to many different humanizing efforts. This way, I made sure there were no taxable monies available from me.

I want to say no strongly to an administration which would spend nine billion dollars more for war-making and would cut out an already allotted 2.6 billion for things ranging from cancer research to schools and hospitals.

I want to say no strongly to a government which makes the poor and the old grovel for enough bread to survive while it struggles to give oil depletion allowances to those who have robbed the earth of natural resources meant for all, not for a favored few. Imagine wanting to give taxpayers’ money to those who have made 130 percent profit off a probably contrived energy crisis which caused suffering to millions! Of course, the poor always have an energy crisis. They live in fear of having heat, gas, electricity shut off because there is not the money to pay the exorbitant bills. But it is not just that taxpayers’ dollars are used for war and for oil depletion allowances. That would be enough for tax resistance.

I want to say no strongly, by not filling out an income tax form, because money from the people of this country is used to train police in other countries how to torture, how to repress demands for justice. Money from this country was used to overthrow a legitimate government in Chile, with the subsequent murder of countless Chilean citizens. Money from this country is used to support and maintain dictatorships in South Korea, in the Phillipines, in Brazil and in the Dominican Republic, and in other Latin American countries where big business gains enormous profit off the cheap labor, off the enslaved backs of millions of our brother and sister humans who live in neighboring lands.

Money from this country, from the people of this country is used to keep people who yearn for freedom in inhuman prisons. And there is no asylum here for the economically or politically oppressed, as the dollars are spent to weed out illegal aliens in hunts that put to shame and mock the words on the Statue of Liberty: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free.”

To the laws that de-humanize, and that are anti-human, anti-life, I say no not just with a clear conscience but as a way of clearing conscience. The law of love the only one we must keep, is violated blatantly.

Jesus says we must love our neighbor. My neighbors in Jersey City are poor, old, Puerto Rican, black, illegal, and the way taxes are spent violates their humanity! I say no to such violation of the people here in Downtown Jersey City and to all my neighbors with whom I share life on this planet.

Peace,
Rev. John P. Egan

That issue also had updates on the Bromley/Peacemakers conflict with the IRS:

Bromleys Face Eviction for Tax Resistance

By Peggy Scherer

It was in 1972 that the Internal Revenue Service first sent notices to The Peacemaker and to Ernest and Marion Bromley, claiming approximately $25,000 in unpaid taxes. The assessment, based on banking records of The Peacemaker, claimed that Ernest had been a paid employee. This claim is false: Ernest never received payment for years of work on The Peacemaker. IRS also claimed that recipients of money from The Peacemaker Sharing Fund, which supports families of imprisoned war resisters, were employees and taxes were owed on their “salaries.” This last claim was later dropped. The first claim has been carried through, with a second injustice. The assessment is based on financial records of The Peacemaker; but the property that has been taken to pay the unjust assessment, a house located near Cincinnati, Ohio, belongs to Gano Peacemakers, Inc., which is a separate financial entity. Though the house belonging to Gano Peacemakers Inc. is also the home of Ernest and Marion Bromley, and was the mailing address of The Peacemaker until recently, no money was ever exchanged between the two groups. But the house was seized by the IRS on Jan. 31, 1975, and sold at auction on May 28, 1975.

SSS Secret Flies

This case has serious implications for the Peacemaker Movement as a whole. If IRS succeeds in this action, it can proceed to make it impossible for The Peacemaker to continue. There are political implications for thousands of other peace groups and individuals as well. The auditing of The Peacemaker funds in 1972 came soon after the Special Services Staff (SSS) drew up a file on The Peacemaker and Ernest Bromley, then acting editor of the paper. A memo on this file, dated Dec. 8, 1971, singled out The Peacemaker and Ernest Bromley for tax refusal and encouraging others to refuse to pay war taxes. The SSS was set up by IRS, at the request of Richard Nixon. Its purpose was to study groups and individuals who protested against the US government, especially those who protested US involvement in Vietnam. The SSS investigated and drew up files on 2873 organizations and 8585 individuals who were considered extremists and dissidents. Only 99 of these files have ever been made public. The existence of the memo on The Peacemaker was discovered by accident. And though the SSS was supposedly disbanded on Aug. 9, 1973, the continued harassment of the Peacemaker movement, and the fact that the files have not been destroyed or made public, even to the people studied in the files, indicates otherwise. The man in charge of setting up the SSS was Leon Green, then deputy assistant commissioner of IRS — and now regional commissioner of the IRS, headquartered in Cincinnati.

The continued and secret existence of these files is dangerous. In connection with the Bromley case, a reporter and a group of Quakers requested to see all files pertaining to the case. Although all the proper request forms were filed through official channels, this group was continuously denied access to the files. Another reporter who wrote a newspaper article sympathetic to the Bromleys had his own accounts audited by the IRS soon after his article appeared.

Peacemaker Response

The IRS has been informed of the true facts of this case, but has continued almost without hesitation. Since the first notice sent the Bromleys in 1972, hundreds of letters of protest sent to IRS have resulted in one change. IRS claims that recipients of Sharing Fund monies were employees have been dropped. But the assessment was readjusted and fines were added to keep the amount they claimed was due them at about $25,000. The Bromleys, because of personal beliefs that to appeal through IRS appeals courts would be to recognize an unjust system, will not work through the courts. They believe, rather, in personal witness and public disclosure of the abuse of power. In accordance with this belief, the Bromleys and many others have written letters, leafletted the IRS building in Cincinnati daily for the last five months, and gotten newspaper articles written. Personal conversations between individual Peacemakers and IRS officials leave no doubt that IRS has all the facts but is acting anyway. Education of the public in the facts of this case, and the credibility that this is in fact an act of political harassment, was attested to when, on June 18, 1975, Cincinnati’s city council voted 8 to 1 to ask two Congressional committees to probe this affair.

There is still time to respond to this case, on the part of individuals and groups. Write to demand the reversal of the sale of the house (a step which IRS can still take until the official closing of the sale and eviction, which will take place on, or around, Sept. 26). Request that all the SSS files be destroyed, and that the IRS not be allowed to harass any other groups or individuals who disagree with the government. Letters should be sent to:

Regional Commissioner Leon Green
District Director Dwight James
Federal Office Building
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Donald Alexander, Commissioner, IRS
12^th & Constitution, NW
Washington, DC 20224

The Congressional Committees investigating the case are the US Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights, 102 B Russell, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC 20510, and the Oversight Committee of the House Ways and Means Committee, 2371 Rayburn Building, Washington, DC 20515.

Those who have faith in government processes might write these committees.

The most important witness will be on Wednesday, Sept. 3^rd, at the National Headquarters of IRS in Washington. We are asking as many people as possible to join us then, for a general demonstration and acts of civil disobedience, in protest of IRS harassment of the Bromleys and all political dissenters. For exact times, gathering points, and information on housing, etc., contact Kathi Milanowski, c/o Community of Creative Nonviolence, 1345 Euclid St. NW, Washington, DC 20009 (202) 667‒6407. There will be an action the same day in Cincinnati — contact John Leininger, The Peacemaker, 1255 Paddock Hills Ave., Cincinnati, Ohio 45229 about this action and for more information on the case.

Demonstration at IRS September 3, 1975

A general demonstration, protesting IRS harassment of the Bromleys and all political dissenters, will be held at the National Headquarters of IRS, in Washington, D.C. For exact times, gathering points, and information on housing, contact Kathi Milanowski, c/o CCNV, 1345 Euclid St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20009, (202) 667‒6407.

The September 1975 issue of The Catholic Worker gave an update on the national War Tax Resistance organization, which I think was nearly finished by this point:

War Tax Resistance

The War Tax Resistance national office has moved to 629 South Hill St., Los Angeles, Ca. 90014. Mandy Carter, a member of the War Resisters League, is the new coordinator of WTR. The office provides literature on war tax resistance, and publishes the bi-monthly Tax Talk.

Today, some excerpts from The Catholic News Archive concerning tax resistance in 1984–85.

The June 1984 issue of The Catholic Worker included a new Ernest Bromley essay promoting war tax resistance:

War Tax Resistance

By Ernest Bromley

Although it has been several years since I wrote an open letter to the President of the United States, I wrote one this spring about refusal to finance war or the preparation for war:

Open Letter to Ronald Reagan

I was imprisoned during World War Ⅱ because I refused to pay federal taxes for war. I had already decided that, so long as I would not take up arms to kill, I should not buy the arms and pay someone else to kill for me. I began eight years later, in 1950, after the U.S. went to war in Korea, to refuse even to file a tax return since I wished to cancel any remaining tie with the arm that gathers war funds.

Now that the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. are helping each other prepare to blow up the world, I reaffirm publicly my separateness from IRS. That destruction of the world would be accomplished in the name of providing “national security,” reveals that the policy is ironically insane. I need to put some distance between myself and that policy. When governments move mindlessly toward destruction, individuals must move mindfully toward blocking them. We should remember that it is the individual that furnishes most of the tax dollars, and that it is the military that spends most of them. A dual obligation falls on the individual therefore to stop payment. If security or sanity lies in any other direction, it has not yet been shown.

If millions this year were to refuse payment, that would not — to paraphrase Thoreau — be the violent and bloody measure that it would be to pay and enable nuclear powers to end us all.

Ernest Bromley
10208 Sylvan Avenue
Cincinnati OH 45241
April 11, 1984

In 1945, before any of us knew that such a thing as an atom bomb existed, the United States dropped one on the unaware and innocent populace of a Japanese city. If we had known that such a weapon existed, we could have predicted with almost total certainty that it would be used, for where in history can we find a weapon that was built but was not used, was produced yet was kept on the shelf as a museum piece?

I am glad I did not participate in financing the atom bomb. My concentration, however, is on not financing the more grotesque and grisly weapons being planned today; one of them even being called the “ultimate weapon.” We have indeed become a society of butchers, as Bertrand Russell said a few years ago. If this ultimate weapon should come, the ultimate danger will come right along with it, the ultimate danger for everyone on the planet. No way can then exist for getting rid of that danger without first getting rid of that weapon.

During World War Ⅱ, I was aware that the government wanted both “you and your money.” There has been a change. The government now wants your money only, for it is your money that constructs those almost self-operating weapons that can destroy everybody and everything. The government has been making it plainer and plainer that today’s combat soldier is the taxpayer — the person who provides the cash to produce and deploy the push-button hardware and software for mass annihilation. The world is now spending $1.3 million every minute toward this end at the same time that it robs the already-poor and destitute.

Back at the turn of the century, Leo Tolstoy showed us that individuals shoulder great responsibility for warfare. If widespread refusal of military taxes could take place, he said, something in government would have to change because government could not put that many people in prison, and, if it could, it would still be without funds for its military operations, and solutions other than military ones would have to be found. It is the same today except that the urgency is much greater, for the “military operations” of old have now become “extermination programs.”

People who contribute substantially each year to these extermination programs — and there is no way to avoid doing so when giving tax funds to IRS — are, whether they like to think so or not, engaging in “crimes against peace,” something that is forbidden by our moral code, by the Nuremburg Tribunal and by other treaties to which the United States is signatory. The excuse, “We are only obeying orders of our duly-constituted government,” is, of course, empty and meaningless. The Nuremburg principles held that preparing to engage in crimes against peace is, in itself, a crime against peace, and that people cannot hide behind orders given by government when they personally commit those crimes against peace.

Those “good Germans” of the 1930’s and early 1940’s, who knew they were building death camps, and knew they were building those other means of human extermination, justified their acts on the grounds that they “had to obey the law.” People who finance the horror weapons of today are in the same category. Disobeying a statutory law is, of course, illegal but it is not necessarily wrong. The higher laws often cannot be obeyed without disobeying some of the lower ones. Clearly a choice has to be made.

Holding back money from what one vitally opposes so that one can give it instead to what one vitally favors is probably as old as civilization itself. From history we learn that this practice existed in many parts of the world, including England, India, and the United States in the American Colonies. Probably no resistance has been more effective or more honored. People in these countries who stopped their money cut off from government a source of revenue that government had come to depend on, and they also made clear, thereby, their open opposition to certain government laws and practices.

Our responsibility extends, of course, beyond government demands into the whole of society, and we should be ready at any time to do what we believe to be right. We are creatures of the whole earth, not just one strip of it, so, if we aspire to be citizens of something, we should aspire to become citizens of the globe. Hope for the future is dependent on many more people acting on their consciences, becoming bolder and going further than they have yet gone, for the human conscience has a power all its own.

(For people who are considering some form of tax resistance or who wish to learn more about tax resistance, there are two groups that offer helpful information on methods and consequences of such an act. These are: National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee, P.O. Box 2236, E. Patchogue, NY 11772 (516‒286‒8422), and War Resisters League, 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 (212‒228‒0450). Eds. note.)

That paper also included an article about war tax resistance in its January 1985 issue, in which it promoted a “patron saint of war tax resistance”:

War Tax Resistance

According to figures developed by the War Resisters League, fully 63% of all income taxes collected for the United States Federal budget for the fiscal year 1985 will be spent on military outlays. This includes spending on all current military programs, veterans’ benefits, and payment of interest on the portion of the national debt created by past military spending (estimated to be 80% of the entire national debt). Given the increasingly aggressive U.S. military policy, particularly in Central America, and the billions of dollars being poured into destabilizing weapons systems such as the MX missile, the cruise missile, and the “star wars” missile defense system, more and more people are beginning to question the morality of their tax dollars being put to use for such potentially destructive purposes. Many feel they can no longer fund these military programs in good conscience, and so they are participating in war tax resistance, as a way of following their beliefs and attempting to bring about social change.

War tax resistance can take many different forms. Some people refuse to pay a token amount of their income tax, $5 or $10, as a symbolic protest against militarism. Others withhold the percentage of their tax that corresponds to the percentage of the Federal budget allotted to the military. It is important to note that any income tax money paid will go in part to military spending, as it is impossible to earmark money for peaceful purposes only. For this reason, many people choose not to pay any Federal taxes at all, or keep their income below the taxable limit. Another form of war tax resistance is refusing to pay the Federal excise tax on telephone services, a tax which has been associated with the funding of the Vietnam War.

Choosing to refuse payment of war taxes, and deciding the best course of action to take, can be a confusing and intimidating process. Our tax system is complicated, and the Internal Revenue Service can be seen as a rather formidable institution to take on single-handedly. Fortunately, there are a number of resources available to people considering tax resistance. The Guide to War Tax Resistance, published by the War Resisters League (339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012, $6), is an excellent book, thoroughly covering many topics, including the history of tax resistance in the United States, the various types of tax refusal strategies, and the procedures the IRS might use to attempt to collect refused tax money. The National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (P.O. Box 2236, East Patchogue, NY 11772, tel. 516‒654‒8227) offers many valuable resources, including listings of regional tax resistance groups and counselors (send a stamped, self-addressed envelope), and a war tax alternative fund information packet ($5). Alternative funds are an important aspect of tax resistance, as many people, in refusing to pay taxes to the Federal government for military purposes, instead contribute their tax money to groups working directly for peace and human needs. This is an example of how tax resistance can be used as a positive tool for social change.

Confronting our system of taxation and the war machine is a difficult task, as we are all tied into an economy that is geared toward increasing our military might.

---

Saint Hugh was born of a good (and pious, of course) family in Burgundy, France, around 1140. After his mother’s death, when he was eight years old, his father placed him in a house of regular canons to be cared for and educated. When he was fifteen, he made his religious profession in the same community. In his nineteenth or twentieth year, he happened to visit the Grande Chartreuse with one of his superiors. The retirement and silence of the place enkindled in Hugh a desire to embrace the Carthusian life in all its austerity, which he did, over the objections of his former superior and the grim picture described by the Carthusian prior of their life. Of the next seventeen years of his life at the Grande Chartreuse, there is very little to be said, other than that, like St. Francis and various other saints, he had a certain affinity for animals. He especially liked squirrels and birds, of whom he was very fond, and over whom he had a considerable power. Later in life he had a pet swan who was very protective of him. During this time he also acquired a reputation of great holiness.

Tax Resister

It was this reputation which prompted King Henry Ⅱ of England to send for Hugh to come and take over the government of a charterhouse he was founding at Witham, as part of his penance for the murder of St. Thomas Becket. It is at this time that Hugh sparks our interest, for he refused to undertake his office until full payment and compensation had been made to those who had been evicted from their land to make way for the charterhouse, a small oversight on the King’s part. This was not the last time Hugh would remind the King of what was right and just, usually to Henry’s expense, but Hugh’s holiness, strength of character and good humor (he was famous for his disarming puns) won him the respect and confidence of his sovereign.

In 1186, he was elected to be Bishop of Lincoln, a see which had been vacant for eighteen years. While at the task of straightening out the affairs of his long neglected diocese, he also found time to nurse the sick (particularly lepers), assist the poor, play with children, rebuild his cathedral, and during a period of vicious anti-Semitic violence at the beginning of the Third Crusade, he was found at Stamford, Northhampton and Lincoln, singlehandedly facing angry mobs of Christians, compelling them to spare the children of Israel.

In 1197, King Richard Ⅰ wanted the bishops and barons to subsidize his war with Philip Augustus of France. St. Hugh refused, maintaining that his see was only obliged to assist in home defense. This seems to be the first documentation of war tax refusal, and, though it was not an easy time for Hugh and his see (all his goods were confiscated), in the end he was able to stand up to the king, rebuke him, and come out on top of the situation. The king stood corrected.

On his return home from France, having been on state business for King John, he became ill in London and died on the evening of November 16, 1200. His body was carried to Lincoln, where it was buried in the cathedral amidst what appears to be universal grief. At his funeral were present: “The primate of England, fourteen bishops, a hundred abbots, an archbishop from Ireland and another from Dalmatia, King William of Scotland, King John of England — and the Lincoln ghetto was there, bewailing the loss of its protector and a ‘true servant of the great God.’ ” St. Hugh was canonized in 1220. His feast day is November 16. He is popularly (in certain circles) thought of as the patron saint of war tax resistance.

―Gary Donatelli