The Washington herald., 1906-12-05
CONTINUED FROM FOURTH PAGE.


a big shipper from maintaining improper
advantages at the expense of small ship
pers and Of the general public. Such a
combination, instead Of being forbidden
by law, should be favored. In other
words, it should be permitted to railroads
20 make agreements. provided these
agreements were sanctioned by the Inter
state Commerce Commission and were
published With these two conditions
compiled with it is impossible 10 see what
harm such a combination could do to the
public at large. It is a public evil TO
have on the statute books a law inca
pable Of full enforcement because both
judges and juries realize that its fun en-
forcement would destroy the business or
the country. for the result is TO make de-
cent railroad men viOlatOrs OF the law
against their will and to put a premium
on the behavior Of the wilful wrongdoers.
Such a result in turn tends TO throw the
decent man and the wilfuI wrongdoer into
close association. and in the end 10 drag
down the former to the latter's level; for
the man who becomes a lawbreaker in
one way unhappily tends to lose all re-
spect for law and to be willing to break It
in many ways. No more scathing cOndem-
nation could be visited upon a law than is
contained in the words Of the Interstate
Commerce Commission when, in COM
menting upon the fact that the numerous
joint traffic associations do technically
violate the law. they say: The decision
OF the United States Supreme Court IN
the Trans-Afissouri case and the Joint
Traffic Association case has produced
no practical erect upon the rail-
way operations of the country. Such as
sociatiOns, in fact, exist now as they did
before these decisions, and with the same
general effect In justice to all parties,
We ought probably TO add that it is diff
cult to see how our interstate railways
could be operated with due regard to the
interest Of the shipper and the railway
without concerted action of the kind az
forded through these associations.
This means that the law as construed
by the Supreme Court is such that the
business of the country cannot be con-
Quoted without breaking il. / recommend
that you give careful and early cOnsid-
Grafton to this subject. and il you find
the opinion of the Interstate Commerce
Commission justified. that you amend the
law so as TO obviate the evil disclosed.
There is every reason why. when next
our system Of taxation is revised, the ma
ttonal government should impose grad
uated Inheritance tax. and. If possible. a
graduated income tax The man Of great
State, because he derives special advan-
tages from the mere existence OF govern
ment. Not only should he recognize this
obligation in the way he leads his daily
life and in the way he earns and spends
his money, but it should also be TecOg-
nized by the way in which he pays for
the protection the State gives him. On
the one hand, il is desirable that he
should assume his full and proper share
Of the burden of taxation; on the other
hand it is quite as necessary that in
this kind of taxation, where the men who
vote the tax pay but little of it. there
should be clear recognition Of the danger
Of inauguTating any such system save in
a spirit of entire justice and moderation.
Whenever We. as d people. undertake TO
remodel our taxation system along the
lines suggested, we must make 1t clear
beyond peradventuTe that our aim is TO
distribute the burden Of supporting the
government more eqUitably than at pres
enJ, that we intend 10 treat rich man and
Door man on a basis of absolute equality.
and that We regard il as equally fatal TO
true democracy to do or permit injus-
tiee 20 the one as 10 do or permit in
justice to the other.
There can be no question of the ethical
propTiety Of the government thus deter
gift or Inheritance should be received.
Exactly now far the Inheritance tax
would as an incident. have the effect of
limiting the transmission by devise or gift
of the enormous fortunes in question it
Is not necessary AT present TO discuss It
is wise that progress I'm this direction
should be gradual At first a permanent
national inheritance tax, while it might
be more substantial than any such tax
has hitherto been, need not approximate
either ia amount or in the extent Of the
increase by graduation. TO what such a
tax should ultimately be
This species of tax has again and again
been imposed. although only temporarily
by the national government. 1t was first
imposed by the act Of July 6. 1877. when
the makers Of the Constitution were alive
and at the head Of affairs It was a
graduated tax; though small in amount
the rate was increased with the amount
left TO any individual, exceptions being
made in the case Of certain close kin. a
similar tax was again imposed by the act
of July 1, 1862; a minimum sum Of one
thousand dollars In personal property be
ing excepted from taxation. the tax then
becoming progressive according TO the
remoteness OF kin. The war revenue act
OF June 13. 1S9S, provided for an inherit
ance tax on any sum exceeding the value
Of ten thousand dollars, the rate Of the
tax increasing both in accordance with
the amounts left and in accordance with
the legatee's remOtenes5 Of kin. The Su-
preme Court has held that the succession
tax imposed at the time Of the civil war
was not direct tax. but an impost or
excise which was both constitutional and
valid More recently the court in an
opinion delivered by Mr. Justice White.
Whlch contained an exceedingly able and
elaborate discussion Of the powers Of the
Congress to impose death duties srs
tanned the constitutionaIity of the inner
ltance-taX feature Of the war-revanue act
OF 1898
In its incidents, and apart from the
main purpose Of raising revenue. an in
come tax stands on an entirely different
footing from an inheritance tax. becausa
it involves no question OF the perDet1a-
tion Of fortunes swollen 20 an unhealthy,
size. The question is in its essence a
question of the proper adjustment of bur-
dens 10 benefits. As the law now stands
IL is undoubtedly difficult TO devise q ma
tiOnal income tax which shall be CON
stitutionai. But whether it is absolutely
impossible is another question: and if
possible il is most certainly desirable
The first purely income-tax law was
passed by the Congress In 1851. but the
most important law dealing with the sub
ject was that of 1894. This the court held
TO be unconstitutional
The question IS undoubtedly very intri-
cate, delicate, and troublesome The de-
cision of the court was only reached by
one majority. It is the law Of the land.
and, of course. is accepted as SUCH and
Loyalty obeyed by all good citizens. New
ertheless the hesitation evidently felt by
the court as whole in coming TO con-
clusion. when considered together with