New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-05-22
THE DUDLEY BILL VETOED.
GOVERNOR BLACK REGARDS 1T AS A
SCHEME OF COMPLICATION.
HE SAYS THERE is NO URGENT NEED OF MONEY
WHICH WOULD JUSTIFY THIS UNUSUAL

WHICH WOULD JUSIlrI AhAS SA>SoSN-
TAX ON ENTERTAINERS,
Albany. May p CspecaD.-Governor Black an
nounced to-day that he would not approve the Duo-
lev inheritance Tax BILL which was drawn py Con-
tro,ler Roberts. His reasons for this acuon "''
stated In the following memorandum:
.Tynder the law now existing in this State tax
NJ & per cent is imposed upon the transfer Oh All
property real personal above wv III ainoe'
when such property passes by the dea'n ol 'ne
owner or Is conveyed by him in contemplate" "a
death To this general provision there ~ an eN
o.r,,or which includes cases where the persons
taxing are parents children and few others
specifically named In cases embraced III ''e e
ception the tax is reduced to per cent anu up
niles only TO personal property ABOVE Sio'oV III
value This proposed bill increases the per ee ~,
tax upon personal property after it reaches soVV"o
,r vo,uo Of the rate of per cent for every SSoWo
ar major fraction thereof until the increased rare
shall reach Is per cent. 1t also increases 'he pe
cent tax upon personal property uhui 'a"' N
reaches 10 per cent. The increase begins wheh 'n'
estate IL worth N0000o0 and continues az the '"'e
Of one-half of per cent for every s2Soco up 70
% 10000 at the CT per cent Tor every SI'OV
thereafter up to the 10 per cent limit
at Is apparent that this bill makes rao'ca'
change in the law. Estates which uhoer INC 30
ent statute would pay tax Of 5 per cent migh.'
under the proposed bill. pay tax OF 10 per CEN
Estates which would now pay per cent might
cn.nge 80 sweeping even II Its effects fell upon al
alike there should be substantial reasons ~
ditions have existed and may again. "heii o
almost overwhelming in the form OF taNa'iot W.
necessary. and were borne without complaint nu,
those were times. ana the coioi'o''S W ~
now bear resemblance
STATE NOT IN NEED OF MONEY.
1.-THE State is not in need Of money its TAX ia''
Is comparatively low, and is likely 10 oe ies' ~
,ora q "a greater The people will pay next year
10 the State only 81 67 upon every sl'V'' Vi ply
erty farm assessed at $50" VIII pay " W
State in taxes IS 81 This bill affects only 'e So
tax hut the State tax is not oppressive' IL IL INC
county and city taxes that bear SO heavii!, a4.,
soma ,neans should be adopted 10 make inns TACT
onnear The Legislature is Invariably heo re-
sponsiblc IN the public mind for the TAX ia.e' w
vet only once in ten years mas inc So ~ -
reached Sc 80 on $1,000. II extraVas"h0o "
"a, arairs were corrected. the tax burden Woulu
car 81, rsanced. and / believe that the Lesis-
$50 should require that tax bills and tax war
wants should be itemized so as to snow INC 90.
city and county taxes separately III oiN'
tho responsibility where 1t belongs ana susse
remedy for overtaxation. TINS DILL .'' c..o, ,r
not be defended on the ground oi '
gent need for increased revenue 80, 49,.
.n. hos bsan claimed IN support OF the Dill '""'
nersonal property to a very large extent nv"
evades taxation. This may DE uue' 49, ns.ono,
mind this bill is not the proper remedy. ,o.,
property Ia now subject to taxauoh uiN.i s.uooa
- mis- state If that law were properly ehlot'eu
% ,a ~ hu, little evasion. The iaull IL
,.h tho officers of the law, and not Win '"o ~
itself 1t Is not denied that persona f., ~
come cases pays it's share. and yer inns 10" -
a.. % reach those who have evaded wouio puliia.
.hosa who have already paid Ihis o'".o ne
80. ,o confess that 1t IS powerless to ENFORCE its
,on,s sxcept by grouping the innocent aho su'..'
together and Furnishing the whole. i" so,a
ing IN tho present time or conoiuo" "
that confession. -.,r. b,ob 20 me
"rut there are other considerations wh'c1i W A1s
ortro,,,np The operation OF the proposeu
,o,y might impose the most serious mari
q. not unusual that the death OF those h'i''s "
advanced age IL soon followed py inc go - ~,
.uccessor in the direct line OF descent s
would deduct 10 per cent upon I"i ,o.hs oneAfth
each death so that in case OF TWO oe "'i 90
- ~. antirs property would b. appropriate "
.ha State and this. perhaps, upon p t0p 49,
hod already paid its full tax In Cases W." -.
maximum tax is Is per cent. the aiioU - or
.ha STATE would be still greater such cases a.e
the ota'o 80 ar remote. but II they were both
i,o' 80. snould not create such a contingency
without the amplest justhca'ioh'
A PENALTY. NOT A TAX
.,,,. tina strongest argument against TINS Dill 10
That the rate proposed is not uiii'o, -, horl.
There Is no reason why one man - roosor
nov more than another mans Iheie - Nv aor,,.
~, tho last million dollars OF man pr
why ,"o ,ora than the first million. The ois-
ebnlftd
,,n.,,on between the two is a penaI'y, no' -
INV Under this bill an inheritance Oh si'
,-ou,d nav a tax Of $4,000. and an lnhe'i'ai,o "
"a 600 600 under similar circumstances o,r times
ss large in one in the other put co 5ns
would be forty times as mnch. HoIIar ought under
the same Conditions 70 pay I 5he o aaHs unjust but
other theory OF taxation ,h HE could be imposed
any other might be- equality is demanded in all
In this c4 3anatIon must certainly be included
isu ss rnle were not adhered to one set OF men
might without unmlted power OF discrimination
safely be trusted tho to smy 2S The eSper
TINS w 70 last oI summer and fan had significance
which should keep us mad re" good it's
but the margin Of safety was not enough sSe ID I'm
the doctrine fraso THAT %c awS ihose who the
laws may exempt themselves ,e,roc, &c carried
this SSanSy ase Elements TRns 6,
yearly vaccnated into our Popu,aa4ons ,s FAR TOO
nfeSaenp legislatures depending upon popular lar
vote changing every yy ise we shall adhere
the rule that who passes law must abide
!oI,be claim that the rich growing richer ano
the poor poorer Is not true, and would have enc no
sear Ing here Of the industrious stead
lily on the gain We have had hato o iles from "a
decreased income but from too liberal way Of
living well In times Of St san be- sus
come shrlnks these habits become rsdvced
Our burden then seems double because reouceo
income is struggling with the tastes ana haoits
left over from prosperous times.
RICH NOT SPECIALLY PROTECTED
Neither is it true that the rich receive greater
r,rotecton from the Government. according TO their
property than the poor. The reverse Is prooaoiy
true This is illustrated In the case OF IRE and
rolce protection and school facilities. Those pos
sessed OF large incomes can. through the employ
ment of servants. protect themselves against fire
and the inroads of criminals They can. and to a
very large extent DO educate their children OUTSIDE
the public schools On the other hand' peopie Vi
nsarota mans depend very largely upon the
t;oyernment for the advantages named. Ihese iat-
Ter considerations have no proper weight upon
,~rohie,ns like those involved in this bill, ana they
Ire alnded to here only because the tendency IS