Saint Mary's beacon. [volume] (Leonard Town, Md.) 1867-1983, 1906-05-24
The Right Of ConfiscAsion.


Constitutional requirements for Enc0nse
and Inkevifsace Tar.
The Chicago Chronicle, comment
ing oe the usterances OF President
Roosevelt and Secretary Taftin rela-
lion TO the curtaiiina OF inheritances
by c0udscation al above . certain
amount OF 9 decedant's property,
says: THE right ~ taxation for
that purpose is recognized by the
authorities on Law and she rights OF
men," Il also quotes from Mr..
Taft's recent speech at Yale, known
as the "Parlor Socialist Speech, /"
the proposition, shai neither at
common law nor under the Constitu-
ton meaning the Constitution of the
United States) il the right Of des-
cent Of property or the devising Of
it an inalienable right. Il depends
wholly upon the legislature.
Both both the Chroaicle and Sc
cretary Taft are mistaken, so far
as their remarks relate 70 Federal
taxation. An inheritance tax would
certainly be Q direct tax. and II il
were imposed by Congress would
necessarily be apportioned among
the several States according TO popu-
lation. The Federal Constitution,
in two clauses, forbids q direct tax
under any other condition. The
common law il modified by the con-
stitutional provisions. Ii has no
force here, so far IS taxation is con-
cerned. The legislatures of the
States might confiscate private pro-
perty, but Congress- could not. 1t
might levy graduated income tax
ian indirect taxi framed so as to be
uniform throughout the United
States. Indeed, 10 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 &c. but because
the tax laid by that bill fell on the
proceeds OF land and constituted a
direct tax not apportioned as the
Constitution required. A tax on all
incomes except those arising from
land would be perfectly constitution
al and feasible. But an inheritance
tax laid by Congress- would, from
the fact that 1t would be q direct
tax, constitute . violation OF the
Federal Constitution, since il would
not be possible toapportion itamong
the States in proportion to popula-
ton.
Again, the right TO acquire an es-'
tate by inheritance is an in
alieuable right. no less than the
right to acquire il by purchase. Il
is included among the rights of pro-
perty; and no honest lawyer or
statesman will deny that life, liberty,
and property are equally protected
by the English law and by our own
constitution. A ''parlor socialist"
is far less dangerous and far more
honest than Cabinet cornfield law
yer or even White House confisca-
tor. IL overgrown fortunes are 10
be distributed in this country, as
they will be, the work must be done
according to the principles advocat-
ed by Jefferson, and not according
TO the vain, hysterical propositions
of Taft and Roosevelt. Those over
grown fortunes have grown up un-
der the shelter Of protectiouism In
opposition TO the Democracy.
Trusts and combines built up by
the protective tariff laws and special
privileges enacted by the Republic
cans have made them possible.
When the Democrats regain the
government they win be distributed
without any violation OF natural
right by restoring equality ofoppor-