The San Francisco call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1895-1913, 1899-02-08
The Stanford Estate
Case Reopened.
WITH SUPREME JUSTICES
AN ABLE ARGUMENT BY At
TORNEY GENERAL FORD.
He Contends That the State Would
Be Defrauded by an Unconsti-
tutional Act Of the Leg
islature.

A case Of great Importance was argued
yesterday before the Supreme Court in
bank involving a matter of 100000 to the
school fund of the State. The subject un-
der consideration was whether or not the
legislative act of 1897 amending the act
Of 1898 exempting certain heirs from pay
ing the income tax on the estates of de-
ceased persons is constitutional. The case
In particular was that of the Stanford es-
tate. The decision of this will operate-n
number of others involving large estates
in various parts of the State. The propo-
sition, briefly outlined, is this:
In 1893 the Legislature imposed an inherit
ance tax of per cent upon all inheritances
devises, legacies and requests, excepting as tc
Thereafter, in the same year, Senator Stan
ford died, leaving a will by which he dis
posed of a large estate to various beneficiaries
were to receive about s., 200, COO, and the
Leland Stanford Jr. University, an institution
falling within the excepted clauses as defined
in the amendatory act of 1897 In 1897 the
Legislature attempted to enlarge the excepted
classes by adding thereto nieces and nephews
residing in the State of California, and GER
tain institutions such as would include the
Leland Stanford Jr. University.
This is not the first time that the same
marfr has been hefoe bt the ate
was admitted to probate the matter went
to the higher court upon the constitu-
tionality of the act, and not few be-
lieved that the amendment of 1897 was
made with reference to the Stanford es-
tate. The appeal was decided last No
vember by the court in department ad-
verse to the interests of the State.
w. F. Fitzgerald, then Attorney Gener,
al, asked that the case be reheard, as he
had never been officially informed of the
existence of the case and consequently
represented in court. The request was
granted, but Mr., Fitzgerald going out OF
office the new Attorney General, TREY l.
Ford, took charge of the matter, which
was heard yesterday.
Dr.. Taylor represented the resident
nephews and nieces, Cotton & Cotton the
nonresident heirs, and TREY L. Ford the
State. The points presented by the attor-
neys for the heirs were the same as adj
vanced at the former hearing, but those
by the Attorney General were all new
Mr.. Ford attacked the conStitutionality
of the amendment of 1897 by asking the
question: Had the Legislature the power
to thus enlarge the excepted classes sc
as to affect the estate of .decedent who
died after the original act had gone into
effect but before the amendatory act was
passed?'
In his argument Mr.. Ford said:
The second section of the amendatory act /,
to in, the title of the amendatory act. The
the Legislature thereby attempted to make
gift of right that had Heretofore accrued t.
the state. InlS right OF winch the Legislature
attempted to make a gift was certainly
thing of value from whatever standpoint
it may be viewed. If it be considered tax
then, by the very terms of the act of SO. II
became due and payable upon the death ot
the decedent, or in other words, the State
then became vested with the right to collect
the tax in the due course Or the administra.
ton. which right could not be deemed less
than thing of value The per cent re-
tanned belonged absolutely to the State and
was unquestionably a thing of value" which
the Legislature had no more right to give away
than 1t would have to give away the capitol
grounds at Sacramento or the money in the
State treasury.
The attempt to include the nieces and
nephews residing in California in the ex-
cepted classes was clearly in conflict with the
constitution of the United States and the uni
form line of decisions bearing upon the sub
ject. This is admitted, but the principle is
misapplied by the opinion rendered In depart
ment. The Legislature attempted to relieve
the nieces and nephews alone, which clearly
could not be done No attempt was made tc
extend such relief to nonresident nieces and
nephews. If an attempt to impose burden
on non-residents must fail, an attempt to ex-
tend relief to residents must likewise fail
II the attempted legislation must be declared
invalid in the instance it must likewise
be declared invalid in the other.