The news & observer. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1894-current, 1901-02-17

taxes fall more heavily on the poor man
than on the man of considerable proper
ty There is rot the slightest uoupt pu'
that the smaller the piece OF plopeltS
the nearer its actual value is II "s9esseu'
nor = ,hcre any greater doupt pu' 'iaI
The personal property belonging 70 the
FARMER. being all in plain slShI vi the
assessor and consisting OF ar1lcieS me
N~tue OF which is well known IS also as
sessed for much nearer IT sactual Ndiue
IMAM personal property consisting o.
stocks, bonds, credits and similar prop
erty.
Now what can he more equitable IN an
effort TO place the burden OF taxation
on the shoulders Of our property owners
in proportion to their ability TO pear H.
than a system OF inheritance or income
taxes. We must supplement the poll tax
and the property tax by some tax which
will fall more especially on the proper
Jy of the wealthy
Nh, Barnett in his monograph on the
system of taxation in North carolina
p. 1893 strongly contends that II taxa
ton is TO be just the poll tax ana the
general property TAX the one a rcgres-
sive tax and the other a constant tax,
must be compensated for by some tax
which will fall more especially on me
property of the rich. The taxes which are
especially fitted for use as compensatory
or equalizing taxes arc the inheritance
and the income tax. The income tax is
not used as an equalizing tax in North
Carolina on account of supposed constitu-
tional limitations. The inheritance tax
is consequently left as the sole tax avail
able for this purpose"
This question has already been before
the Supreme court of our State and in the
&C n c. Reports in the case of PUllen VS..
Commissioners. The court said: we do
not regard the tax question as tax on
property, but rather as a tax Imposed
on the succession, or the right OF the
legatee TO take under the win, or OF
collateral distribution in the case OF in
testacy.' Is there any reason
why the State shall be denied the power
TO tax a succession whether it be by gift
inter vivos or by will or intestacy Prop
erty itself as wen as the succession 10
il is the creature OF positive law. The
legislative power declares what objects
in nature may be held as property it
provides by what forms and on what con-
diticns il may be transmitted from one
person TO another; ii confines the right
Of inherting TO certain persons whom it
defines as heirs. and on the failure of
SUCH ii takes the property TO the State
as an cscheat.
The right to give and take property
is not enc OF those natural and inalien-
able rights which are supposed to pre-
cede all government and which no gov
eminent can rightfully impair There
was a time at least as to gift by will,
wnen it did not exist; and there may be
time when it will seem wise and eX
pedient to deny it. These are the uncon-
tested powers of the Legislature upon
which no article of the Constitution has
laid it's hands to impair them. If the
Legislature may destroy this riGhJ may
il not regulate il? May it not impose
conditions upon its exercise? And the
condition it has imposed in this case is.
tax %
And after quoting this decision Mr..
Barnett goes on To say that there is
ample scope Tor the adoption OF an in
heritance tex 10 act as the much needed
balance wheel in the tax system of North
Carolina The dis inCtion which the court
has so forciby drawn between a tax and
a regulation of Inheritance leaves the
General Assembly free 10 fashion an in
heritance tax without being cramped by
constitutional provisions. The inheri-
tance tax ought to become in North Caro-
liza the safety valve Of the tax system.
We may be sure that the returns would
be sufficient to tighten appreciably the
heavy load of regressive taxation.
NJ S. WILLARD.