The record-union., 1899-09-16
Incidentally Declaring the Inheritance Tax
Law Constitutional.
Reverses It's Former Decision in
the Stanford Case and Decides
in Favor of the State-The Deci-
sion Will Have Effect of En-
riching the State School Fund
by Half a Million Dollars.

SAN FRANCISCO, Sept 15.-By a
decision of the Supreme Court to-day,
that tribunal reversed itself, enriched
the State school fund by half a million
dollars, of which the Stanford estate is
mulcted for 100000, and incidentally
declared the inheritance tax to be con-
Stitutional.
The opinion handed down to-day,
which held as constitutional the Act OF
1893, as amended four years later in
the matter of taxing collateral inheri-
tances, was written by Justice Van
Dyke, and concurred in by Chief JUS
tice Beatty and Justices Temple and
Garoutte, and reversed the decision in
the same case written about a year
ago by Justice Harrison. In to-day S
decision Justice Harrison dissented.
The law as laid down to-day applies
to every estate in California over $500
in value, and puts Immediately into the
school fund nearly 100000
When Senator Stanford died he left
a will in which, among other bequests,
he gave S2,500,000 to trustees for the
benefit Of the university he had es-
tablished, and S2,200000 to certain of
his nephews and nieces residing in this
State and in the East. The District
Attorney of this county, on behalf of
the Treasurer, brought claim against
Mrs. Stanford, as Administrative, for
S235, ,750 taxes on the collateral in
heritances mentioned.
Superior Judge Coffey of the Probate
Department in his decision sustained
the validity of the law, and ordered
he toto RI G0CS ES0
Mrs Stanford appealed to the Supreme
Court, where Justice Harrison's deci-
sion reversed the judgment of the low
er court. His position was that the
legislative amendment of 1897, exempt
ing local heirs and taxing foreign heirs
inheritances was a discrimination, and
hence the Act and amendment were
unconstitutional.
w. F. Fitzgerald, then Attorney
General, made application to the Su-
preme Court for a rehearing of the
case, basing his petition on the ground
that the State was party in the
case, and as it's legal representative ne
had never been served with notice of
appeal. The States interests lay in
the loss or gain to its school fund. The
motion was granted, and Mr.. Fitzger-
aid. retiring from office. his successor
Tirey L. Ford, pursued the case to
to-day's victory for the State
In the decision the constitutionality
of the Act under consideration is up
held, on the ground that the tax in
question is not upon the property, but
upon the right of succession, and the
right of the Legislature to impose on
excise tax includes the right to select
the subjects upon which it shall be
imposed. The reason for the amount
now due, about 100000, being greater
than the amount sued for, S235, ,750, is
on account of the penalties attached for
the nom payment of the tax.
The Supreme Court upholds the right
of the Legislature to place proper re-
strictions upon the powers of inheri-
tance, and says that the right. to in
herit must be in accordance with the
laws at the time of the death of the
testator.
Under this decision the following
sums for the inheritance tax are col
lectable in San Francisco from about
score of estates, besides many small
er amounts: Mrs. Annie Donahue,
S102, ,335; Thomas Carter (estimated),
500. 600; L. p. Drexler (estimated),
$50, 900; w. A. Piper, S25, 900; Charles
Main, S21. III; Jacob c. Johnson, S4 :
800; Timothy Mahoney S2,790: Charles
Pace, 50 800; Charles A. James, 50, 800;
Honorat Laguperie, S2.507 George w.
Deane, $500; w. B. Dolan, $2,320;
C. F. f. Heiniske, $1,000; Leopold
Rosenheim,. $4,000; George A. Deane,
81 $50; Charles Eggeling, $500.