The morning call., 1893-09-25
THE LAW OF WILLS.

Sixty-two years ago Stephen GiraTd died
at Philadelphia, lea wing an estate valued
at $9,000.000. The wi hole Of this property
he beQue athed to charity. and though his
executors were forbidden TO make invest
ments which were in any measure specu-
latlye, the increase in the value of real
estate has been such that the Girard estate,
is now probably worth twice much as it
was when the old man died. Yet when an
appeal was lately made on behalf of an
aged niece of Girar0, named Darby, who
is IN acute want in the Department of the
Dordogne in France, the lawyers replied
that there was not dollar availa bic for
the relief of her distress.
The incident will revive the discussion
over the policy of allowing decedents 10
dispose of property in which their inter
est has ceased. Stephen Girard devoted
his wealth to q high and noble purpose,
and on general principles people cannot be
required 10 provide for their collateral kin.
But it Is hardly TO be questioned that if he
were alive to-day he would not let this
poor old Frenchwoman starve. Being
dead, his testament is like the laws of the
Medes and Pe:sians, not to be altered by
any power on the face of the earth. The
same point in different shape. Tilden's
desire was that the bulk Of his fortune
should be used TO found library. He en-
bodied his wish in will, which the courts
pronounced vague. The beQuest was de-
feated. and the property went to col
laterals. In both cases a result was reached
which the testator, If living, would have
disapproved.
The right OF testator to dispose of his
property by will has been so uniformly
recognized by codes that 1t has come to be
regarded as a natural right, which it is
not. Even inheritance is a creation of
law. A son has no natural right to the
ownership of his deceased fathers estate,
but the laws of all nations have admitted
that he has. and. within certain limits, in
some countries the law denies to the
father the power to forfeit the right. Yet,
as matter of abstract natural law, a
mans right to dispose of his property
terminates when he is no longer able to
enjoy il. As dead man can own nothing,
neither can he clothe another with an
ownership he cannot himself possess.
The principle has been inferentially
recognized by the acts lately passed in
several States imposing a heavy tax on
legaces and nheritances. Such an ac,
was passed few years ago in New York,
and is now yielding large income to the
State; our Legislature adopted similar
enactment at the last session. These acts
would be unconstitutional IL property in
transition from a decedent to his legatee
stood on the same footing as other
property, for tie first PRINCIPLES of taxa
ton is that it should be uniform. If the
State has right TO take 10 or 10 rer cent
of the estate of decedent it has the right
to take The whole. The recent acts thus
recognize that the rights of heirs and leg
atees are artificial rights created by the
common law or by statute, and the power
which created them can take them away.
Society is not prepared to see the law of
inheritance swept away. And yeti the evils
of the abolition or mod fication of that
law are more apparent than real. 1t is ex.
ceedingly doubtful whether the benefits of
inheritance outweigh its mischiefs. AS
civilization progresses opinion goes back
to first principles-the happiest man is he
who lives by the sweat of his brow. More
promising natures are ruined by the
knowledge that they need not evoke that
sweat than perhaps by any other cause.
IL is phenomenal TO see the son of mil
lonaire prove q successful citizen. Even
the heir to a moderate competency is often
hindered by that competency from the ex-
ertion which breeds usefulness. When
man need not work he will not work as
general rule; be becomes drone-in the
way of those who are parts of the great
social machine. and pushed 10 one side as
a superfuOus creature.