The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-04-28
Not Unconstitutional,

Editor of Waichman;-Dr. Smith, in his
letters to the WATCHMAN, insists that the
law taxing collateral inheritances is uncon-
stitutonal, in that it deprives a man of the
right of disposing OF his property by will as
he may wish. The doctor is in error in this
contention, If we may believe what Hon.
Perry Belmont says in regard to a law Of
this kind in the March Forum. By the laws
Of New York both lineal and collateral in
heritances are taxed. According to Mr.
Belmont, an inhabitant of New York gave
by will his entire property to the United
States. An inheritance tax, which amount
ed to about 81 900, was insisted on by the
State before the property was turned over to
the Federal Government. This claim was
sustained by the New York Court of APP
peals. The question was taken to the Su-
preme Court of the United States, and this
decision was approved. The Court says in
part 60 The tax was not imposed upon the
bonds themselves, but upon the estate of
the decedent, or The prtuilege Of acquiring
property by Inheritance. We know
of no legal principle to prevent the legisla-
ture from taking away or limiting the right
of testamentary disposition, or imposing
such conditions upon its exercise as it may
deem conducive to the public good"
AS the Forum says, according TO this de-
cision, the tax is not on property, but on a
privilege" We have. and have had from
the foundation of the government, many
laws that interfere much more than this tax
law with mans right to dispose of his
property. By No. "A, " An act relating to
its last session, the widow takes absolutely
one-third of her husbands real estate, but
prior to that statute, she held only the use
OF one-third. III there are no children the
widow takes 80, 900 and half the remainder
OF her deceased husbands estate, without
regard to his will. By section fourteen of
this statute-which is but little more than
the common and equity law OF this State
the husband cannot by will or by deed con-
vey his real estate 30 as to deprive his wild
ow of her dover right. In 1886 our Su-
preme Court decided that it was competent
descent, and that no one had any vested
right Of inheritance. In 1889, the Legisla-
ture passed the statute regulating entails.
Under this statute the testator has no con-
troll over his real estate except during the
life of the first devisee, for the second de-
visee takes it in fee-simple absolute" and
can convey it with good title. This stat
ute was passed for the purpose of putting
into force Section 36, Of the Constitution,
which is: 1.-THE Legislature shall regulate
entails in such manner as to prevent per-
petuities." This section proves IL anything
were needed more than the history Of our
legislation for the past one hundred years,
that the trainers OF the Constitution intend
ed that the Legislature should have control
Of the descent and testamentary disposition
VI pIOpoIbys
The Constitution declares that man has
right to liberty" the right of acquiring
possessing and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining happiness" etc.
DR.. Smith claims that the right to dispose
of property by will follows az corollary"
from this declaration. II we should admit
this to be true, it would not aid the doctors
reasoning, because the Legislature clearly
could determine the manner of disposing OF
1t, and the terms and conditions under
which the beneficiary could take the es-
tate. The doctor amends, offhand, the
Constitution by an inference, or "corollary"
as he calls it, and then attempts to show
that theLegi stature had exceeded itsauthor-
ity. 1t could easily be proved that the bill
is not in conflict with DIR. Smiths amended
Bill Of Rights. But this is not important.
While think DIR. Smith Ia wrong in as
sailing the tax law with such violence, he
has done good service in calling attention
to the matter of taxing all inheritances.
With your permission, Mr.. Editor, will
make few observations on this law in
another paper.
K. II. PALMER.