The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-06-16
The Vermont Grab Law; COnstitu-
tiOnal or Not?

Editor Of the Wdtchn,dn;-Since the dis
cussion Of the Vermont inheritance tax
law began in the WATCHMAN. the question
of taxing inheritances and the extent to
which the people will submit to such form
OF confiscation has assumed a wider field OF
interest. Not only is the question dis
cussed pro and con by contributors to
magazines, but some of the metropolitan
papers are expressing decided editorial
opinions on the question. The real animus
Of the Vermont law is now apparent. 1t is
only an entering wedge to follow in the
footsteps OF the more general confscatory
and communstic laws OF New York and
Pennsylvania. But the scheme in New
York for general confiscatiOn Of dead men g
estates has failed for the present by the
timely veto OF the governor; in Pennsylva-
mia similar law has come to a halt by the
decision of one Of the lower courts, and now
awaits its final fate in the opinion Of the su-
preme court.
One of the Vermont dailies says OF the
Pennsylvania law: 1.-THE tax is not large,
things" The Tribune speaks of the New
York law as "The Tax on Prosperity, !"
The law Is denounced by that paper as
inequitable and mischievous." Governor
Black is commended for his veto which is
claimed to be conclusive in substance and
excellent in form"
The governor does not say whether he
considers the law constitutional or not, but
says: If this Is constitutional, it ought
not to be-" He evidently thinks OF it much
as your correspondent does Of the Vermont
sneak-thief, grab-law. Having discussed
this on its violation of the principles of
justice and equity, studiously avoiding say
ing anything as to its constitutionality
leaving that to be argued before the
courts--if any one is likely to be robbed of
enough TO make 1t pay to test the question,
l was a good deal surprised to have Mr..
Palmer state in his letter to the WATCHMAN
that insisted that the law was unconsti-
tutional." My allusion to the constitution
and my " corollary," that the right to dis
pose of property followed logically the right
of acquiring, possessing and protecting"
were used to refute the statement OF the
Messenger that the dead have no proprie-
tary rights whatever" II 1 have said any
thing bearing 30 against the law that its
constitutionality needs to be defended, l
have builded better than I knew" 1t
was by incident and not by direction. II it
were the question OF constitutionality that
| was arguing, / should have referred to
different article in the constitution, and also
to a provision OF the law not mentioned in
this correspondence.
AS to the statement of Mr.. Palmer that
the law giving widow or widower one
third of the deceased companions real es-
tate, absolutely, interferes more with the
right of testamentary disposition than this
inheritance tax law, l have only TO say that
tne law giving such one-third, only defines
the property rights OF marriage, which are
just and equitable, and which no will, deed
or other conveyance should submit.
II is worthy of remark that all decisions
of courts sustaining inheritance tax laws,
claim that the tax is not on the property,
but ON " the privilege OF acquiring 1t by will
or Inheritance" IL that is 80, il is about as
reasonable as 1t would be to tax the privil-
ege OF acquiring property by laboring for it,
on the ground that property acquired in
any wsy all belongs to the state. This
ruling OF courts is only scheme for "scul-
ling around the question:" as Vermont
Judge once remarked to a lawyer who was
trying to get witness to make some state
ment bearing on a question that the Judge
had ruled against.
1t has been claimed by the advocates of
these laws, that on the decease of person,
his property all belongs to the state, for the
reason that the legislature can regulate the
matter of Inheritance, deciding to whom the