The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1906-04-17
THE MULTIMILLroNAIRES.
President Roosevelts Latest Doctrine Ex'
pounded and Defended.

NitSiuNAt hbOuStNttt
pounded and Defended.
To THE EDITOR OF The SUN-Sir; What
the President said In the speech made by him
on April IA about the advise bllity OF pre-
venting the inheritance or transmission inter
piros in their entirety Of fortunes swollen be-
yond all healthy" limits seems TO have been
misunderstood by some OF his American
commentators, but IL has startled nobody IN
England or France, where laws aimed in the
same direction have long been upon the
statute book.
Mr.. Roosevelt Is hastily assumed In some
quarters to have advocated a progressive
income tax. His words will bear no such
construction. His speech will be eoaaa7v' II.
vain for any intimation that, even In his per
sonal opinion, INCOMES ought to be taxed
The President Is 600 we'll informed to make
such a suggestion, mindful as he must be OF
the decision of the United States supreme
Court by which the income tax law enacted
In Mr.. Cleveland's second Administrations
was adjudged unconstitutional He might.
II Is true, have recommended a constitutional
amendment expressly authorizing a Federal
income tax. but he knows that the adoption
OF such an amendment would practically De
unattainable. and he is not In the habit OF
making purely academic proposals. Inc
right OF imposing a tax on incomes Is Vesteo
In the constituent States. and Mr.. Roosevelt
- NNsHNh 'AV ~ 'ci W.
elusive possession OF It.
All that he Is inclined to recommend Is the
adoption OF a progressive tax on all fortunes
beyond a certain limit the fixing of which
he does not presume to undertake., either
transferred by way Of gift during the lie OF
the owner or devised or bequeathed upon
death to any one individual. Such q law
would virtually compel the poesessor OF a
colossal fortune 80 to distribute 1t by Will
among q number OF ~legatees that no one OF
them would obtain a share fairly describable
as unhealthy. That Is to say, the President
would take similar precautions against the
transmission Of a huge amount OF personal
property TO an eldest son or any single lndl-
vidual which the law OF most; If not all. our
States has taken against primogeniture. or
the transmission Of a vast amount OF real
estate to a single heir. 1t Is well known
that In France such restrictive laws have
been operative for about q century. The
Code Civil compels q ~testator to divide his
property, real or personal, with a close APP
preach to equality among his children.
In an inheritance tax there is. Of course.
nothing new on either side of the Atlantic.
In the State Of New York. for instance, there
is a tax Of s per cent. upon the clear market
value OF an inheritance. In Great Britain
precisely what Mr.. Roosevelt advocates has
been for some time operative. namely, a
progressive inheritance tax, varying from
/ per cent. on small devised or bequeathed
estates to 9 per cent. on very large ones.
There seems. however. to be an important
difference between the British inheritance
tax and that which Mr.. Roosevelt has in
mind. The difference is In the point Of view.
Mr.. Roosevelt apparently considers an enor-
nous fortune-let us say a billion dollars-a
possible danger TO the welfare of the Com
monweslth, for he would speak Of 1t as
swollen beyond all healthy limits" The
British legislator. on the other hand, seems
to look with approval on the accumulation
of great fortunes as presenting the prizes
which stimulate the application OF ability
and industry to the solution of economic
problems. He puts no limit on the amount
which an individual heir may inherit. but
simply insists that he shall bear a share of
the public burden proportionate to his in
herlted resources.
Whether the imposition OF a progressive
inheritance tax, such as the President has in
mind. by the Federal Government would be
constitutional seems uncertain. 1t Is true
that during our late war with Spain a graded
inheritance tax law was enacted Sby Con-
gress. but. 80 far as l know, the United States
Supreme Court has not as yet had occasion
to affirm or deny the constitutionallty Of that
measure. So far as the question of expedi-
ency is concerned, / do not understand Mr..
Roosevelt to profess TO say offhand how
large a fortune would have to be to become
unhealthy" II TO a single indi-
vidual. or course, what would seem u rea-
sonable limit In a'country villas e might tend
in New York city to discourag e the persistent
application of paternal energy to accumula-
ton, A practical definition. however. ought
not to be unattalnable.
One can easily see that, II the transmission
by inheritance OF a billion dollars might con-
ceivably constitute a public danger. the same
thing could hardly be said Of the transfer Of
a twentieth Of that amount.
TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICAN.
NEW YORK, April i6.