The Glenwood post., 1906-12-08

oidnOAEu OIl company Anu db LAS DcoH
shown since by the investigation of the
tobacco and sugar trusts) as to the initi
alive of big railroads. Often railroads
preventing = big shipper from maintain
Ing improper advantages at the expense
or small shippers and of the general pub
forbidden by law. should be favored. In
other words, it should be permitted to
these agreements were sanctioned by the
were published With these two condi-
see what harm such combination could
do to the public at large. 1t is a public
evi' to have on the statute books law
Incapable of full enforcement because
both judges and juries realize that its
full enforcement would destroy the bust
make decent railroad men violators of
the law against their will. and to put
premium on the behavior OF the wilful
to throw the decent man and the wilful
wrongdoer into close association, and In
the end to drag down the former to the
latter's level. for the man who becomes
a lawbreaker in one way unhappily tends
to lose all respect for law and to be
more scathing condemnation could be
visited upon law than is contained in
the words af the Interstate commerce
the fact that the numerous joint traffic
associations do technically violate the
qT they States ay Tss soaes n Of the the
Iransmississippi case and the Joint
Traffic association case has produced no
practical effect upon the railway opera
in fact. exist now they did before
these decisions. and with the same gen
ought probably to add that it is difficult
to see how our interstate railways could
be operated with due regard to the inter
without concerted action of the kind az
forded thru 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 it. / recommend
that you give careful and early consider
alton to this subject. and II you find the
opinion of the Interstate commerce com
mission justified, that you amend the
la" SO as to obviate the evil disclosed
Inheritance and Income Tax.
1t was expected that the president
would refer in some way to his belief
In the necessity for the curbing of enor-
nous fortunes. and he has done so by
recommending legislation for both in
come and an inheritance tax He be-
lieves the government should impose a
graduated Inheritance tax, and. II posi-
BILE graduated income tax. He says
II am well aware that such a subject
order that the people may become famil-
lar with what is proposed to be done,
may clearly see the necessity of proceed,
Ing with wisdom and self-restra int. and
may make up their minds Just how far
they are willing to go in the matter.
while onlv trained legislators can work
out the project in necessary detail. But
feel that in the near future our nation
al legislators should enact Il law provid-
ing for graduated Inheritance tax by
which steadily increasing rate of duty
should be put upon all moneys or other
valuables coming by gift. bequest, or
devise to any individual or corporation.
1t may be well to make the tax heavy
in proportion as the individual benefited
is remote of kin. In any event in my
increase very heavily with the increase
of the amount left to any one individual
after certain point has been reached.
II is most desirable to encourage thrift
and ambition, and potent sour.e OF
thrift and ambition is the desire on the
part of the breadwinner to leave his chill
dren we'll on. This object can be attained
by making the tax very small on moder-
ate amounts of property left; because
the prime object should be to put con
stantly increasing burden on the inher
itanCe of those swollen fortunes which
II is certainly of no benefit to this coun-
try to perpetuate.
There can be no question of the eth
ical propriety of the government thus de
termining the conditions upon which any
Exactly how far the inheritance tax
would. 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
1t is wise that progress in this direction
should be gradual. At first permanent
be more substantial than any such tax
has hitherto been, need not approximate
either in amount or in the extent OF the
increase by graduation. to what such
tax should ultimately be.
Inheritance Tax Constitutional.
This species of tax has again and again
been imposed altho only temporarily, by
the national government. 1t was first
imposed by the act of July 6. 1897. when
the makers of the Constitution were
. - ffutr
a graduated tax; tho 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 !. 1862, minimum sum of
$1,000 in personal property being excepted
from taxation, the tax then becoming
progressive according to the remoteDess
of kin. The war-revenue act of June IL,
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 a direct tax but
stitutional and valid, More recently the
court. in an opinion delivered by Mr..
Justice White, which contained an eN-
ceedingly able and elaborate discussion
Of the powers of the congress to impose
death duties, sustained the constitution
ality of the inheritance tax feature of the
war-revenue act of 1888.
Is Income Tax Constitutional?
In its Incidents and apart from the
main purpose of raising revenue. an
income tax stands on an entirely differ
ent footing from an Inheritance tax, be-
cause 1t involves no question of the per-
petuation OF fortunes swollen to an un-
healthy size. fhe question is in its
essence a question or the proper adjust
ment of burdens 10 benefits. AS the
law now stands it is undoubtedly diff
cult to devise national income tax
which shall be constitutional. But
whether 1t is absolutely impossible is an
other question; and II possible it is most
certainly desirable. The first purely in
come tax law was past by the congress
in 1861, but the most important law deal
ing with the subject was that of 1894
This the court held to be unconsttu-
tional.
THE question is undoubtedly very in
tricate, delicate. and troublesome. The
decision of the court was only reached
by one majority 1t is the law of the
land, and, OF course, is excepted as such
and Loyalty obeyed by all good citizens.
Nevertheless. the hesitation evidently
felt by the court whole in coming
to conclusion. when considered to-
HI.