The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1900-05-16
SEATTLE. WEDNESDAY MAY 10.
The Inheritance Tax Law.

The supreme court of the United
States. In its decision unfolding the con-
stitutionality of the inheritance tax
law, passed upon several questions
which are OF great moment In future
tax legislation by the national govern
ment. Among these subjects probably
the most important is the authoritative
determination that the provision of the
constitution that all duties. imposts and
excuses shall be uniform is geographical
in its scope; that Is. It is not limita-
ton upon the powers of congress In
dealing with individuals. but is intend
ed for the protection of the separate
states against federal discrimination.
Congress thus has powers to levy GER
tain taxes which are not uniform. in
their operation upon the individual tax
payers but which are uniform In the
sense that they do not press more hard
ly upon the individuals OF one state
than upon the individuals of another.
Following this, the progressive feature
OF the inheritance tax. the one wherein
It most radically departs from previous
tax laws. is necessarily upheld.
The Importance of this decision lies
In the fact that 1t permits the federal
government TO exercise the power.
which It is perhaps doubtful whether
the state governments possess, under
their constitutional limitations. to levy
taxes with reference to the ability Of the
person upon whom the burden is placed
20 bear the same: and this without ref
erence TO the fact whether In Its opera
tons the law conforms to the exact
test of uniformity.
To illustrate: The legislature of the
state OF Washington. in regulating the
tax laws, while under Populistic con-
troll. attempted to exempt from taxa
ton $1,000 worth OF personal property to
each individual. The purpose of this
law was, OF course. TO exempt a great
mass OF the people from all taxation.
and to throw the whole burden upon
those whose personal property exceeded
$1,000 IN assessed valuation The SUI
preme court OF the state held that this
was repuguant to the constitutional pro-
vision, which required taxation to be
equal and uniform. The state consti-
tuition intended that every dollars
worth OF property. whether owned by
the individuals in large or small
amounts. should pay It's equal and exact
share Of the taxes. The national inner
itauee tax law eXempts legacies under
$4,000 from all taxes. and increases pro
excessively the propOrtlonate amount OF
tax as the lcgacscs reach higher figures.
Thus legacy of $4,000 to stranger
would under the national law pay a
tax oF s5oo. while one Of million would
pay proporuanately three times as
much. or $4,000
The supreme court. In its decision. adj
mits that such a power as Il locates tn
congress might be the subject OF gross
abuse and that under it arbitrary and
rontiscatqyy eNactlons might be imposed
beariug The guise ot taxation. but does
NOT conclude from this that It is the
duty OF the court to usurp any purely
legislative function. The present law is
neither arbitrary nor conascatory. and
the decision as 90 what the court nigh,
do in cas- such law were enacted Is
LETT 20 bc determined when such a case
appears,
Right here Is a significant remark in
the decision which IL Is well for those
90 examine and ponder over who imag
inc that individuals have no natural
rights, unless they are expressly defined
IN the constitution; and that unless this
constitution extends OF its Inherent
force over all newly acquired territory
congress could have absolute and un.
limited power TO Impose any system ol
government and disregard al Of tht