The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-04-28
The Collateral Inheritance Tax.

Editor Of the Watchmdn:-An editorial
under the above heading in the Bra tleboro
ReJ0rner, not long since, sustaining the
Vermont law and defending 1t from criti-
cisms In your paper, has, in most OF the
points claimed, been suffi ,iently refuted in
your columns, both by editorial comment
and correspondence. but there Ia one claim
in the editorial referred to which seems, 80
far, to have passed unnoticed.
After the assertion that "the only person
that has any right to property Is the one
that has earned or accumulated It," the edi-
torial further says, "tbere is no time, there
fore, when society has so good right to
step In and tax property as when 1t pro-
vides for its safe transmission, by Its purely
artificial contrivances. to persons who have
in fundamental principle no right to It,
Particularly is this true when the transmits
sion Is to persons who are in no way legally
dependent on the former owner Of the prop
erty" In REPUTATION Of this claim, the Re-
former Is referred to No. g. session laws OF
'96, which provides that "the kindred OF a
poor person who 10 chargeable to town in
the line or degree OF brother or
State and OF sufficient ability, shall be bound
to support such pauper in proportion to
their respective abilities" Here we have q
law requiring people OF means to support
their more unfortunate brothers and sisters,
and the same Legislature that passed 1t also
the State five per cent Of all property going
by will or inheritance to the same poor peo-
pie, from the very persons whom Act No. TT
requires them to support. One act compels
them to support brothers and sisters; the
other takes away five per cent OF what they
give voluntarily for such support. The in
consistency OF this grab-aw deepens as we
examine 1t and compare 1t with Others
passed by the same Legislature.
The R.forner assumes good deal OF le
gal lore, claims to be familiar with the
prin ,iples of property and the moral rights
underlying Them" and suggests that the
WAToHMAN and its correspondent might OBJ
tain a little light" by studying Blackstone
and the common law / the author OF thai
editorial has not read either OF these works
more carefully than he has read what ht
assumes to criticise in the WATCHMAN, he
also, might learn something by perusinl
them again; for he says, this law " is mod
eled on that of Maine, not OF New York. al
DR.. Smith supposes." If he will read AGAR
he may see that he has no ground for sucf
an inference. In fact, before writing thu
letter which gave rise to the Retormer's dis
sent, your correspondent was aware tina
the law was claimed to be patterned afte
that of Maine, though careful comparison
shows it to follow more clos ely the law a!
| originally passed in Connecticut, but which
has since been amended so as not to appl!
when the property goes to brothers ard sis
tiers. This is an encouraging step in the di
rection OF complete repeal. Connection
| formerly had "Blue Laws" but changed
the State color to black in the passage OF
collateral inheritance tax law. However
if Connecticut law makers will keep OF
amending the law along the lines upoi
which they have begun, they may some da
bleach out its deep dy ed iniquty.
| Having shown that your correspondent
| made no error in statement of fact, or il
supposition, the suggestion is made to tn
Reformer that it does not follow because
person has, as law student, lstlessly pc
rused Blackstone, or unused over some al
tiquated decision of the common law, tina
he is any better informed on the constitu
tional rights OF the people in a republican
country, or the equitable principles of taxa
ton and political economy, than persons il
occupations other than those requiring tn
special study Of lsw. CHARLES G. SMITH.
Gaysville, Vt, April l6, 1897