The citizen. (Frederick City, Md.) 1895-1923, 1906-05-25
THE RIGHT OF CONFISCA-
TON.

Constitutional Requirement t S
for Income and Inheritance
Tax.
The Chicago Chronicle. COM
menting on the utterances of Presi-
dent Roosevelt and Secretary
Taft in relation to the curtailing
of iuheritences by contiScating all
above a certain amount of dece
dents property, saws: The right
of taxation for that purpose is rec
ognized by the authorities on law
and the rights of men," 1t also
quotes from MIR. Taft'S recent
speech at Yale. known as the
''Parlor Socialist Speech" the
proposition. that 'neither at com
mon law nor under the Constitu-
tion (meaning the Constitution of
the United StateS) is the righr of
descent of property or the devils
ing of it an inalienable right 1t
depends wholly upon the LegiSla-
turp."
But both the Chronicle aud Sec
rotary Taft are mistaken, so far
as their remarks relate to federal
taxation. An inheritance tax
would certainly be a direct tax,
and lift we're imposed by Congress
would nece Ssarily be apportiOned
among the several States accord
ing to population. The Federal
Constitution, in two clauses, for
bids a direct tax under any other
condition. The common law is
modified by the Constitutional
Provisions. 1t has no force here,
so far as taxation is concerned.
The Legislatures of the States
might contiScate private property.
but Congress could not. 1t might
levy graduated income tax ian
indirect tax framed so as to be
uniform throughout the United
States. Indeed, it has often done
that very thing. The income tax
clauses Of the Wilson bill were de-
clared void, not because the law
laid an income tax per Sc, but be-
cause the tax laid 10y that bill fell
OH the proceeds of land and conSti
tuted direct tax not apportiOned
as the Constitution required. A
tax on all incomes except those
arising from land would be per
fectly constitutional and feasible.
But an Inheritance tax laid by
Congress would, from the fact
that it would be a direct tax, con
Stitute a violation of the Federal
Constitution, since it would not
be possible to appOrtion it anon g
the States in proportion to popu
lation.
Again. the right to acquire an
estate by Inheritance is an inalien-
able right, no less than the right
to acquire it by purchase. 1t is
included among the rights of
property; and no honest lawyer or
statesman will deny that life, lib.
erty. and property are equally pro-
tecteG by the English law and by
our own constitution. \ "ParlOr
socialist" is far less dangerous and
far more honest than Cabinet
cOrntield lawyer or even a White
House cOuiiscator. If OvergrOwn
fortunes are to be distributed in
this country, as they will be, the
work must be done according to
the principles advocated by Jetfer.
son, and not according to the
vain, hysterical propositions Of
Taft and Roosevelt. Those over
grown fortunes have grown up
under the shelter of protectiOnism
in opposition to the Democracy.
Trusts and combines built up
by the protective tariff laws and
special privileges enacted by the
Republicans have made them pos
sible. When the Democrats re-
gain the government they will be
distributed without any violation
of natural right by restoring
eqality of opportunity to all the
people.