The Vermont watchman. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1883-1911, 1897-03-31
The LOCALIZED Robbery Law.

Editor of Wdtchmdn:-The St. Adams
Messenger, replying to previous letter OF
your correspondent, says, The dead have
no proprietary rights whatever" They
may have none in barbarian countries, bat
civilized people have conceded them certain
rights, among which are the right. before
the right to have that will respected after
death, The Constitution Of Vermont de-
clares, That all men have certain natural,
inherent and unalienable rights, amongst
which are acquiring, possessing and pro-
tecting property" The right to dispose OF
property follows as corollary to the above
declaration, and laws have always existed
in Vermont providing for disposing OF prop
erty by will when the decedent was OF
sound mind; and in case Of death without
such provision, the law has endeavored to
dispose of the property of the decedent as
he had not known that such equitable laws
existed. Hence q man, after he is dead,
has still existing certain proprietary rights,
and the violation OF these rights and the
misappropriation OF the property in ques-
ton is robbery. 1t is none the less robbery
because the man is dead; in fact, robbing
man after he is dead, is the meanest kind OF
robbery. II he were alive, it might require
some physical courage, some resolution, to
demand his money. He might resist and
put the robber in danger. Or, II the robber
was the State of Vermont, the man might,
and probably would, contest the matter in
the courts till his property was all gone
rather than submit to a five per cent con-
fiscation when no such levy was made upon
his neighbors. But after he is dead, his
property being divided into several parcels,
each beneficiary takes his portion, and the
State of Vermont takes the residue; whether
it is five per cent or ninety-five, the princi-
pie Is the same; and this waiting till the
man is dead before the grab Is made, is
what makes it the sneak thief variety Of
robbery.
II the man is not robbed of the property
itself, he is robbed Of the right to dispose Of
it as he desires. II the law allowed one to
provide by will that the residue Of his es.
tate might pay the tax, 1t would not be
quite 30 odious; but as it is, in order to give
must add to that sum the tax upon the
same, thus greatly increasing the difficulty
OF disposing OF property as person desires.
With this view Of the matter, the ques ton OF
the right of inheritance need not be con-
sidered 1t is simply question as to the
to dispose OF the same. Do the people Of
Vermont wish to rob any person of this
inherent and unalienable right2" Do they
wish to be the recipients Of the money so
unjustly obtained? Do they wish to be &C.
cessories to this legalized, star-chsmber-
The Messenger says, further, of this tax,
I" 1t is collected without difficulty or ex-
pense." Adam Smith, who is credited with
having first brought this tax to the notice of
the English people, claims this to be its
only redeeming feature. He admits the
inequality OF the tax and hence its in
justice.
The Messenger says again, 1T taxes prop
erty which, very generally has escaped its
proper contribution to the support OF gov
eminent during the life time Of the legator,
and will largely escape such proper partici-
patton in the hands Of the legatees." The
Free Press also makes q suggestion of SIM
liar import, but 1t ID purely assumption by
both. Neither OF them can show that peo-
pie whose estates have descended to collat-
eral heirs, either by will or Inheritance,
have been any more prone to avoid taxa
ton than those whose estates in like man
ner have gone to direct heirs; nor can they
show that property, after it has been trans
mitted to collateral inheritors, is more likely
to escape taxation than when it passes in a
direct line. That those papers should make
such claim, or adopt such an inference,
shows the weakness OF their cause. They
would accuse, convict, and prescribe the
penalty by inference. Carry that principle
out to its legitimate conclusion, and courts
and juries need not exist. An inference
and sentence would be the only two steps
necessary in disposng of any crime or mis-.
demeanOr.
The Messenger claims, in substance, that
your correspondent objects to the law be-
cause it is new. The Messenger is mistaken.
II the editor will read carefully he will see
that your correspondent objects to passing
a new measure without proper explanation
or discussion in either House; that is, to its
being railroaded through. A good share of
the Messengers article is directed to New
York, which has general Inheritance tax
law, direct as we'll as collateral. Hence it
does not apply to the Vermont law as re-
CARDS special inequality. The principle of
1t, however, is the same: that might makes
right, and when man dies II is conven-
lent time for the state TO assume the role of
robber and make grab for the property in
passing. 1t is contiscation by slow pro-
cess OF strangulation, which, however, is
not very slow when there are two or three
deaths in rapid succession affecting one es-
tate. II is prompted by spirit OF commun-
ism which has been pervading the country
since New York passed the collateral part
OF the law in 1887. The Messengers quota
ton from the recent report of Comptroller
Roberts, showing the small amount OF per-
sonal property listed in that state as com
pared with the amount invested in corpora
tions, would not apply to Vermont where the |
property OF corporations is taxed in a diff |
ferent way.
A few words as to other collateral
Inheritance tax laws in this country. |
North Carolina and Louisiana had similar |
laws more than sixty years ago, but they |
have been repealed in both states. In Vir- |
ginia law was passed in 1874 OF like import,
and 1t seems to have been repealed and re-
enacted more than once. In Maryland and
Delaware similar laws were passed some
time in the sixties, soon after the war
In other states where such laws ex list, the
trst were passed in 1887, but most of them
since 1890. and this fact is sufficient COM
ment on the statements Of your contem-