The Lamar register., 1906-12-05

!, T. not ineffective. Combination OF
capital like combination or labor is a
It is not possible eope,ey
to prevent 1t; and u II we're possible.
such complete prevention Mould do dam;
~ NOT vainly to prevent all combination,
hut To secure such rigorous and adequate
control f;nns and to the nurms the
public. or existing In sueh form as inev-
itabiy. to threaten 1m3l1oy the mere
practically complete control OF a neces-
sary of life would under any circum-
20 he presumed to be adverse to the pub
lie interest. II Is unfortnnate that our
ws should sS.r rpEd al
Between those combinations which do
evil. Rebates. for instance, are as often
was shown in the Investigation OF the
Standard OIL company and as has been
shown since by the r ,nnsSnsation H., OF ne
ative of big railroads. often railroads
would like to combine for the purpose of
az the
OF small shippers and OF the general pub
lie Such e1m " abnnia instead 5n of bei1S
other words, It should be Permitted to
railroads to make agreements. provided
these agreements were sanctioned by the
were published. With these two condi-
tons compiled with ~ ,inpossible TO
do to the public at large. II Is public
evil to have on the statute books law
incapabie OF full enforcement because
both Judges and juries realize that It's
full enforcement would destroy the bust
mess as Of ds .ns qsiiroad men vloiators Of
the law against their Will. and to put a
premium on the behavior OF the wilful
swronx doers Such result in turn tends
TO throw the decent man and the wilful
wrongdoer into close association. and in
, lnu rn1 level: for the man who becomes
a lawbreaker in one way unhappiiy tends
to lose all respect for ma Law wv and to be
more scathing condemnation could be
visited upon 9 law than Is contained In
commission when. in commenting upon
the fact that the pumsrous Joint trafiic
associations do technical h a yloiate the the
United states supreme court in the
Transmississippi case and the Joint
practical effect upon the railway opera
lions OF the country. Such ASSOCIATIONS.
in fact n s%d With .hfy aa
e ensht e PROBABLY TO add that !, is dihicult
be operated with due regard to the inter
est of the shipper and the railway
wi. td Sonee sbess ssocia1ons h'hd
This means that the law as construed
by the supreme court is such that the
Quoted without breaking 1t. l recommend
that you give careful and early consider
alton to this subject. and II you md 1.-The the
mission justified. that you amend the
law SO as to obviate the evil disclosed.
Inheritance and Income Tax.
would refer In some way to his belief
In the necessity for the curbing OF enor-
nous fortunes. and he has done so by
come and an Inheritance tax. He be-
iieves the government should impose a
Bile. a graduated income tax He says:
II am well aware that such a subject
as this needs long and careful stu 70 MI, N
lar with what is proposed to be done.
may clearly see tho necessity OF proceed,
may make up their minds just how far
they are willing to go, in the matter;
while only trained legislators can work
out the project in necessary detail. But
/ feel that in the near future our nation
al legislators should enact law provid-
which n steadily Increasing rate of duty
ya@aess so~RS X 5 Z, seassss;
1t may be well to make the tax heavy
in proportion as the Individual benefited
Judgment the pro rata Of the tax should
increase very heavily with the increase
of the amount left to any one indivlaus,'
II is most desirable to encourage thrift
and ambition. and q potent source ,S 1i
part Of the breadwinner to leave his chill,
dren well on. This object can be attained
by making the tax very small on noder-
ate amounts of property left: because
the prime object should be to put a CON
stantiy Increasing burden on the inner
itance of those swollen fortunes when
it is certainly of no benefit to this coun-
try to perpetuate. 49, ,.
There can be no question OF the eth-
icai propriety of the government thus de
termining the conditions upon which any
gift or Inheritance should be received.
Exactly how far the inheTitnncr Ia
would, as an incident. have the effect OF
limiting the Transmission by devise OF
gift of the enormous fortunes In QUESTION
II is not necessary at present to discuss
II is wise that progress In this direction
should be gradual. At first a permanent
be more substantial than any such tax
has hitherto been. need not approxima
either in amount or m me ex t s ot W" a
increase by graduation, 10 what such
tax should ultimately be-
inheritance Tax Constitutional.
This species of tax has again and again
been imposed. altho only temporarily. by
imposed by the act Of July s. 1887. when
the makers Of the constitution were
a graduated tax; tho small In amount,
the rate was increased with the amount
LETT TO any INDIVIDUAL fhteptiohs
made In the case of certain close kin. A
similar tax was again imposed by the
act OF July 1. 1852; a minimum sum Of
81 600 In personal property being excepted
from taxation, the tax then becoming
progressive according to the remoteness
Of kin The war-revenue act OF June IL.
1885, provided for an Inheritance tax on
any sum exceeding the value OF $4,000.
the rate of tax increasing both In accord
ance with the amounts left and In ac-
cordance with the legatee's remoteness
Of kin The supreme court has held that
the succession tax imposed at the time
OF the civil war was not oirect tax but
an Impose of excise which was both con-
stitutional and valid. More recently the
court. in an opinion delivered by Mr..
Juatice White, which contained an ex-
ceedingIy able and elaborate discussion
of the powers of the congress- to impose
death duties. sustained the constitution
atty of the inheritance tax feature OF the
war-revenue act OF lsss
10 Income Tax constitutionai7
'.In its incidents. and apart from the
main purpose of raising revenue, an
income tax stands on an entirely differ
emit footing from an Inheritance tax. be-
cause 1t Involves no question of the per-
netuation OF fortunes swollen to an un-
healthy size. The question Is in its
essence a question Of the proper adjust
ment of burdens TO benefits. As the
law now stands II Is undoubtedly dih-
cult TO devise a national Income tax
which shall be constitutional. But
whether IL is absolutely impossible Is an
other question: and Il possible II is most
come tax law was past by the congress
L., 1881 hut the most important law deal