The San Francisco call., 1899-09-16
Supreme Court So Decides in
the Stanford Estate Case.
Its Former Exposition Of the Law Entirely
ReyerSed--The State School Fund Will
Be Enriched by Many Hundred
Thousands Of Dollars.

lue CHdISe liluS imposed Is IN the ld-
ture OF an excise tax or tax upon
the right of succession. and is within
the constitutional power of the Legis-
lature. Getting a number of cases Of
the various States.)
The principles upon which the tax
is upheld have been so fully and
clearly elaborated in the above cases
that it is necessary to do no more
than refer to the cases. The right of
Inheritance, including the designation
of heirs and the proportions which the
several heirs shall receive, as well as
the right Of testamentary disposition,
are entirely matters of statutory en-
aCtment, and within the control Of the
Legislature. AS it is only by virtue
OF the statute that the heir is en-
titled 10 receive any of his ancestor 5
estate, or that the ancestor can divert
his estate from the heir, the same
authority which confers this privilege
may attach TO IT the condition that a
portion Of the estate so received shall
be contributed to the state, and the
portion thus 10 be contributed Is pc
culiarly within the legislative discre-
ton" And, again: LAS this tax is
not upon property, but upon the right
Of succession, the constitutional pro-
vision that all property shall be taxed
according to its value IS inapplicable.
The right of the Legislature to impose
an excise tax includes the right TO Sc
lect the subjects upon which 1t shall
be imposed
1 80
by appellants, that court, in speaking
of this question, says: The precise
definition of the nature of this tax IS
not essential If it Is susceptible of
exact definition. Thus far in this court
we have not thought il necessary in
the cases coming before Us TO deter
mine whether the object of taxation is
the property which passes or not;
though in some expressions may be
found which seem to regard the tax
in that light" (Referring to a num-
Der of cases in that State.) The idea
Of this succession tax, as we may con-
Veniently term it, IS more or less COM
pound; the principal idea being the
which has ceased by reason Of the
death Of the owner. to a diminutiOn,
by the state reserving to itself a pOr-
tion of its amount, If in money, or
of its appraised value if in other forms
Of property"
The decision in the Wilmerding case
would have disposed Of this appeal
were it not that the act in question
was amended by the Legislature of
1897. The act of 1897 is entitled, AN act
to amend an act entitled An act to
establish tax on collateral inherit
anCes, bequests and deviseS, to pro-
vide for its collection and to direct the
disposition Of the proceeds, approved
March %. 1893" 1t amends section l
of the act of 1898 by including among
those who are exempt from the tax
d RESIDENT
of this State, along with certain classes
Of corporations, of which the above
named university is one.
Such amendatory act contains an
independent section, numbered 2. read
ing as follows: THE exemptions con-
tained in this act shall apply to all
property which has passed, by will,
succession or transfer, since the ap-
proval of the act of which this act is
amendatory, except in those cases
u fn ia
Treasurer of the proper county" 1t
IS claimed on the part of the appellants
that the appeal herein must be deter
mined in accordance with the act Of
1888. as amended, referring. in support
of such contention, to Bank vs. Hen
derSon. 101 Cal, 307, and other cases in
the same line. Such decisions are to
the effect that in certain cases where,
affecting the same. upon proper sug-
gestiOn and proof of such matters they
will be considered by the appellate
court; specially is this so when the ac-
tion is of a penal characther, as it
was in the Henderson case.
On the other hand, It is contended
upon the part of the respondent that
the amendatory act in question, so far
as 1t attempts to relieve these appel
lants and other beneficiaries similarly
situated from the conditions or obliga-
tions contained in the act of 1885, being
in effect a REIMBURSEMENT to them of
the sums due the State under said act
is unconstitutional and void.
1t will be seen by the express terms
of the act Of 1898 all taxes imposed
thereby shall be due and payable at
the death Of the decedent" And also
that such taxes shall be Immediately
the proper county"
BY section 25. article ". Of the con-
stitution 1t is declared:N "The Legisla-
ture shall not pass local or special
Low h fz1l
cases, that is to say: Fifteenth:
Refunding money paid into the State
treasury. Seventeenth: Re
leasing or extinguishing, in whole or
In part, the Indebtedness, liability or
obligation of any corporation or per
son to this State, or to any munich
pal corporation therein" In answer to
the foregoing provisions Of the consti-
tuition 1t may be claimed that the act
in question Is not local or special legis-
But the trainers of the constitution,
and the people who adopted it, did
not hedge about the Legislature with
such restraints in the matter of con-
ferring favors, or making gifts or do
nations by special and local legisla-
ton, and at the same time leave the
door wide open for similar abuses to
enter under the guise Of general legis-
lation. By section p of the same
article the Legislature is prohibited
from making any grant or donation Of
property to any institution not under
the exclusive management and control
Of the State, except institutions con-
Quoted for the care and support of
orphans and half-orphans, and aged
INDECENT persons, and in such excepted
cases reserving to the State the right
of visitation. BY section 81 Of said
article 1t IS declared among other re-
strictions imposed upon the Legisla-
ture: Nor shall II have power to
make any gift or authorize the max
ing Of any gift, Of any public money
or thing of value TO any individual.
ever; provided, that nothing in this
section shall prevent the Legislature
granting aid pursuant to section p Of
this article"
part Of the respondent that by the
amendatory act of 1897 1t Is attempted
70 give or donate public money or
thing Of value, appellants counsel
says; That the State never had pos
session of any part Of the 'accumula-
tons or acquisitions of Leland Stan
ford, deceased; and he (re-
spondenD has not shown how the
state could give away what it never
had" In other words. it is claimed
that one not in the possession, Of prop
erty is not the owner of 1t. The law
of 1893 repeatedly declares that the
portion coming to the State shall be
due and payable at the death of the
decedent." And IT is further provided
that from that time until paid over in
the course Of administration the sum
so due the State shall bear interest,
and interest shall be paid on the sum
so due the State.
1t would be absurd to exact interest
for the detention or use Of money or
property not belonging to the party
who demands it. 1t is elementary law
that the right of Inheritance, includ-
ing the designation Of heirs, and the
portions which the several heirs shall
receive, as well as the right of testa-
mentary disposition, are entirely mat