The record-union., 1897-01-22
THE QUESTION OF EXEMPTION
FROM TAXATION.

Issues are often beclouded for want of
plain speaking. The issue raised by the
proposition to exempt the denomina-
tional colleges, schools and asylums of
this country from taxation shall not fall
into the category of those lacking the
definition of candid discussion.
Exemption from taxation is obnoxious
to every sense Of justice. This is be
cause exemption means the transfer Of
the burden Of taxation to other taxpay-
ers. To exempt the denominational col
leges of this country from taxation
means to take money from the people
for the support of these institutions.
While this is not done by direct appro-
preparation from the treasury, it is done
by Withholding from the treasury the
taxes these institutions would pay and
thereby creating the necessity for a
higher tax rate on those who do pay.
This is the simple truth of this matter,
and it will be denied only by the enc
mics of popular education
Bills have been introduced into the
Legislature modifying the inheritance
tax. 1t should be known to the reader
who wishes to understand these mat
ters that an inheritance tax has been in
existence in England for great many
years. Inheritances are of two kinds:
Direct; that is, where children inherit
from parents; and indirect, where there
are no heirs except those in collateral
line, as cousins, nephews, etc. The
EXAMINER says that the proposition
before the Legislature is to extend the
system of inheritance from the collat-
eral TO the direct; that is, to put cousins
and SONS on an equality. A son may
have built the fortune subject Of the
bequest, but cousin or a distant relative
may be legatee Of an estate to the ac-
cumulation of which he has made no
contribution whatever. The distinction
therefore between a direct and collat
eral inheritance tax is natural, just and
ought to be maintained.
Parochial and denorninational edu-
cation is always at the bedside Of the
has never been an instance where one Of
these Institutions, legatee of such be-
quest, showed any other disposition
than one which would have disinher-
fted the children of the testator. When
men whose lives have been devoted to
the accumulation of wealth desire to
atone for life of selhshness by be-
quest to a church, to a college, an asy-
lurn or an institution of learning, the
public may applaud IL no injustice is
done to natural heirs. But whenever
an old miser on his death bed, eubit-
tered toward his near relatives, desires
to emphasize that bitterness by an act
of disinheritance, he can always find
some eleemosynary institution willing
to be beneficiary OF that hate.
The bills before the Legislature pro-
pose to exempt bequests TO parochial
and other denorninational schools from
the operation of the inheritance tax.
The Examiner pretends to see in this
a tendency to the discouragement OF
the accumulation Of private fortunes.
If there IS no inheritance tax on money
given to schools that will be an induce
nent to make them the subject of be-
quests. So the "Examiner' pleads for
an inheritance tax on a fortune to
which a son may be heir in order to
check a dangerous concentration OF
wealth. This special pleading is the
very bathos of hypocrisy.
Rut the underlying meaning Of all this
Go what may be termed division Of the
school fund and an attempt TO secure al
tbe hands of taxpayers support for
5anoninational institutions of learning,
and of this doctrine the Examiner
makes itself a champion 1T says: Bn'
IN any enlightened system of taxation
due consideration ought to be pald lo
those agencies that help the state 70
nerform it's duties to its citizens.
The doctrine enunciated in tnat slate'
ment is the cornerstone OF every as
sau1t which denominational educatiol
has made upon the public schooi ssS'
Tam of this country. To secure " 49,