The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-01-29
INHERITANCE TAX CASE
SUPREME COURT ASKED TO RULE ON
VALIDITY OF ILLINOIS LAW.
Elaborate Argument by Ex-President
Harrison Against Constitution
aIity OF the statute.

WASHINGTON, Jan. 2S-The argument
in the Supreme Court of the United States
in the cases before it, known as the Illinois
inheritance tax cases, was heard to-day.
There are three of the cases. all involving
the constitutionality of the Illinois law, but
they We're consolidated and argued as one
case. The State was represented by Attor-
ney General Aiken, of Illinois; Messrs. T. A.
Moran, Robert S. lies and Frank L. Shep-
ard, and the opposition to the law by ex-
President Benjamin Harrison. William
Guthrie and Eugene +. Prussing. Mr.. Guth-
RE opened the case, and it was arranged
that General Harrison should close.
Mr.. Harrison presented a request at the
opening of the court for more than the ordi-
nary time (four hours) for presenting the
cases, on account OF their Importance, and
an arrangement was made whereby his time
should be extended half an hour to-day af-
ter the usual time of closing the courts
sitting.
In opening the case Mr.. Guthrie sketched
the grounds Of the exceptions. saying that
the validity of the act of the Illinois Legis-
lature of 1895, fixing an inheritance tax, was
involved. He attacked the law on the
double ground that it divides the benefi-
ciaries of inheritances into classes and
makes exemptions. both OF which provisions
were unconstitutional providing, as he
claimed, for taking property without due
process or law and denying equal rights to
all persons.
Attorney General Shepard and Judge Mo
ran contended in response that the law inn
poses a tax upon the privilege of inheri-
tance and not upon property; that the ex-
emptions are fair and reasonable and with
in the power of the Legislature to make,
that the classiications made by the statute
are in proper exercise of legislative discre-
nf1H ffat To- Ss .1%ff in xrfnIa
tion OF the fourteenth amendment of the
Constitution, as contended by those who at
tack it,
RIGHT TO LEGITIMATE.
Mr.. Moran argued that the classification
of inheritances was analogous to the classi-
fication of corporations in which there was
generally schedule of fees which was ar
bitrarily imposed Replying to point in
the brief of those opposing the law. Mr..
Moran asked what was to he dore with lille
gitimates. Gould they be provided for by
legislation? He contended that they could
be. and instanced Pennsylvania, North Car
DINA, Virginia and other States as provid-
ING for their legitimation 1t had often hap
pened that by the fiat of the Legislature an
ineSitiinate child was made co-heir with a
cnlld or wedluck. The exercise OF the power
OF regulating inheritance and testation was
100 otd 10 have applied to IL the modern cpl
thet of socialism, said Mr. Moran When
1llinoiS came into the Union she reserved
tAe I1gnt 10 regulate the inheritance of
property, and the State could not relinquish
that power when il assented to the addition
oI the Fourteenth amendment 10 the Federal
constitution. Speaking of the question of
exemption, he said it was impossible TO fix
a rule Tor Its reasoaableness. as the opposi-
tion had held. When they admitted the
principle they admitted ALL The rule must
be stated and defined, and IL could not be
ieIt 70 lioat around In a gorgeous haze of
words The only discretion left to any one
was 70 be determined by the Legislature of
inc stare, ana IL was not competent for the
decide It,
Mr. Moran argued that a Legislature has
IN the matter Of inheritance as IL had In
making the amount involved Ia a theft the
basis 81 punishment aud ia determining its
degree. lie stated IN reply 10 Justice Har-
Ian that his argument did not apply to the