The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1900-05-15
INHERITANCE TAX VALID
United States Supreme Court Hands Down
Final Decision.
UNIFIED STATES BONDS SUBJECT TO TAX
Uniformity Provisions of the Consti-
tuition IL Not viointed-Decision
Prepared by Justice white

Icuuft OF the united states TO-DAY unnounStd
opinions in the cases arising under the
inheritance tax provision OF the war r'v-
enue act and also in a case Evolving the
applicability Of the state inheritance law
CT New York 10 estates composed of gov
eminent bonds. There we're Ave dacis-
ions under the Federal law and one under
the state law. but two Of the former cases
applied. as did one Of the latter class. to
the taxation Of government bonds The
court held that neither under the state
nor the National enactment were National
bonds exempt from taxation The validity
Of the general Federal law was affirmed,
but it was held to be purely Applicable to
legacies and not to the entire estate Of
deceased persons, the court holding that
the tax was on the passing of lesacies
or distribntive shares Of personality with
a progressive rale on each, separately de-
termined by the sum OF each OF sucA ega-
cies or distributive shares"
The decisions dealing with the Federal
law. as whole. were handed down by
Justice White and those relating to gov
ernment bonds by Justice Shiras.
Tho principal decision in the list handed
down by Justice White covered the case
Of Eben j. Knowlton and Thomas a. Buff
fun, executors of Edwin f. Knowlton,
brought mere from the Eastern district OF
New York The opinion Of the court was
adverse TO the validity Of the law, and
accordingly 1t was reversed. Tho opinion
is very voluminous aud discusses eXhaus-
lively every phase OF the law Referring
to the progressive" feature Of the. act,
AIT lt,,Nt hat
1t creates no new subject of taxation
1T simply provides" he said, ''for the
progressive rates on the property mentions
ed in the opening sentences. which is de-
serbed exactly as IL was In the act OF
iS6i. Now rs the act OF 1864 taxed not
the whole. but each particular legacy or
distrlbutive share, the conclusion can not
be escaped that the present law does the
same thing except that there Is added
thereto a particular rate"
Then he took UP the question az TO
whether the law commands that the ratio
shall be measured by the amount of a
legacy or the whole personal estate, the
conclusion being reached that Il was not
the intention to tax the entire estate, but
the separate or distinct sums of items
Of personal property passing" The con-
cluslon then was announced that the tax
Is "on the legacles aud distributive shares,
the rate being primarily demanded by the
ciasSihcations and being progressively III
creased according to the amount OF the
legaeies or shares
Continuing on this line. the Justice said:
AS the whole amount OF such personal
property as aforesaid relates to tha sum
Of each legacy or dlst-lbutive share con-
sidered separately, It follows that all leaa
cles below $4,000 are not taxed and that
those above that amount are taxed prl-
marily by the degree Of Relationship or
absence thereof. specified in the Ave classi-
heations contained in the statute, and that
the rate OF tax Is progressively increased
by the amount OF each separate legacy ar
alstrlbutive share. This being the correct
interpretation OF the statute ii follows that
tne court below enormously maintained a
contrary construction and therefore the
assessed value and election was for a
larger amount than the sum actually due
by law" "N0
Inc decision held that the tax was not
a uiteot TAX within the meaning of the
CONSTITUTION but duty or an excise tax
IN tne point OF uniformity as re-
CURED by the constitution, Justice White
sald that the constitutional reouiren,ant
was geographical. Considering The teyt
| ne continued, "it is apparent that if tho
mVIo UNIFORM means equal and uniform
IN the sense now asserted by the opponents
OF the tax the words throughout tho
united states are deprived of all real sig
hiHcance' and sustaining the contention
must henee, lead TO disregard of the
elementary canon OF construction which
REQUIRES that effect be given to each word
o e the leslslalon One of the most salts
factory answers TO the argument that the
uniformity required by the constitution Is
tne same as the equal and uniform classe.
"hich nave since been embodied in so
many oil the State constitutions, results
slun q review Of the practice under the
constitution from the BEGINNING
From the very first congress down 10
the present date, in levyng duties inn
POI Is anu excuses the rule OF inherent uni
lorhity or, in other words, intrinseaIly
equal and uniform taxes, has been disre-
sarded, and the principle of geographical
uniformity consistently enforced
WIN reference TO the elections to the
progressive feature of the law lnstics
Whlte SAYS The review which we have
naue EXHIBITS the fact that taxes imposed
WIN reference to the inability of the per
son upon whom the burden is placed 10
pear the same have been levied from the
foundation OF the government So also
some authoritative thinkers and a npmbsr
OF economic writer's contend that a
progressive tax is more Just and equal
IMAM a proportionate one. In the absence
OF constitutional limitation, the question
whether u Is or is not legislative and Is
not Judicial, The grave consequences
. .
future, II the right to levy a progressive
TAX De recognized, involves in its ultimate
ASPECT The mere assertion that free and
respective government is failure. and
that the grossest abuses OF power are fore
Shadowed unless the courts usurp purely
legislative function II case Should ever
arise where an arbitrary and coniiscatory
eSaction is imposed bearing the guse of a
progressive or any other for OF tax, 1t win
De time enough to consider whether the
judicial power can afford remedy by
applying to 1t inherent and fundamental
principles fer the protection Of the ndi-
vtdnal, even though there he no express
authority in the constitution 10 do so
That The law which we have construed
AFFORDS no ground for the contention that
the tax imposed Is arbitrary and confis-
catory is obvious"
Concluding he said: 'It follows from
the foregoing opinion that the court below
erred in denying all relief ana that 1t
should have held the plaintiff entitled TO
recover so much 1.-The tax rs resulted
from taxing legaeies below $4,000 aud
from increasing the tax rate Wis refer
once TO the whole amount OF personal
estate Of the deceased from which the
legacies or distributlye shares were dis
ltrlbuted,"
Justice Brewer dlssented on the ground
that the progressive feature Of the lax