The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1897-08-06
Where Judges Disagree.

The fact that Judges Hanna and Pen
rose Of the Philadelphia courts have
decided the direct inheritance tax en-
acted May T. to be unconstitutional
gives interest to the ruling, on Wednes-
day, of Judge Ashman, also of the Phil
adelphia judiciary. affirming the con-
stitutionality of this act. In this opin-
ion judge Ashman confesses that dis
Crcpancies appear in the act but holds
that since these do not obscure the
clear intent of the act to impose a tax
ON personality alone, they are insullic-
lent to invalidate It, Proceeding thence
to the essence of the act three points
are specially consdercd first the eX-
,mption of requests under $4,000 in
value; second the retroactive feature;
and third. the conditions as to the pay
mcnt of the tax. ..
on the first point Judge Ashman
holds that while uniformity in the tax
alton of estates requires that all es-
tates OF the same character shall be
taxed in the same ratio; yet it is per-
missible to tax or exempt any fraction
of such estates. Furthermore the act
under review is in fact not a tax upon
property at all, but upon the right OF
succession to property, and as such be-
longs to a province wherein it is difficult
to assign any limit to the law-makinS
power. In this belief the judge is for
tilted by numerous similar decisions in
other states, one of the latest being
that Of the supreme court of Illinois.
with reference to the retroactive fea-
turc the opinion is less satisfactory. IT
dismssCs the matter somewhat curtly
by asserting that a retroactive law is
rot expressly forbidden by the consti-
tuition. In the bill of rights there is an
inhibition of cX post facto legislation,
which is all that bears upon the sub
iect. Constructively this has been held
by federal courts having reference to
the identical prohibition in the United
States constitution to apply to legis-
lation affecting criminals, and it was
proposed during the formation of the
DinEley tariff bill in Il parallel emer-
gency to introduce in that measure q
retroactive or retrospective clause. But
here there was a division of expert
opinion as to the constitutionality of
such q clause and it was dropped.
Common sense if not express constitu-
tional mandate is against retroactive
legislation, whatever its kind or intent.
1T may be objected, finally" says
Judge Ashman, that the imposition of
the tax upon those distributes only, OF
estates of decedents dying before the
act, who have not been paid their
shares, is not uniform taxation within
the meaning of the constitution. The
answer seems to be that the Legislature
may in its absolute discretion create
new classes as the objects of taxation,
and may determine the composition of
those classes by purely arbitrary dis
tinctions. The only prerequisite TO the
constitutional exercise of this power of
classification is that the tax shall be
uniform as to it's subject matter within
the class" Here, surely, the position
taken by the judge is impregnable.
The ruling adds a final word respect
ing the question of hardship. 1t points
out that compared with the collateral
inheritance tax the burden placed by
this act upon the taxpayer is far less
than even the lower rate of the taS
would at first sight suggest. In any es'
tate, for example, of $4,000 going tc
four collaterals, the. entire fund is taxed
to per cent. and the share of tax as
sessed against each distributee is $l25
In an estate of the same amount goine
TO four lineal descendants only $4,000 il
taxed, which, at per cent, renders
each distributee liable to but $25. Thi!
clucidation is non-essential but inter
estinG, for it makes clear that if il
equity the collateral inheritance tal
has one leg to stand on, the direct in
heritancc tax has two.
\ layman's opinion on this subject il
unimportant; but we must for our owl
satisfaction say that Judge Ashmanj
view appears in the main reasonable
and sound.