Iowa County democrat. [volume] (Mineral Point, Wis.) 1877-1938, 1906-12-06

was shown in thu investigation II DE
Standard OH company and SIS has heea
shown since by the Investigation OF the
tobacco and sUgar trastsl as to the tnitt~
would like 10 combine for the purpose Of
prsNenuDg a big shipper from maintain
Ina improper ADVANTAGES at the expense
of small shippers and OF the general pub
lie. Such 5 combination, instead Of being
forbidden by law, should be favored. In
other words. IL should be permitted TO
railroads 20 make agreements, provided
these agreements we're sanctioned by the
were published. With these two condi-
TONS complied With Il Is simps,ssiele g
DO TO the public at large. II ia public
evil 70 have on the statute books law
incapable OF full enforcement because
both judges and turtes realize that Its
full enforcement would destroy the bust
ness OF the country, for the result 10 10
make decent railroad men Fiol3tors OF
premium on the behavior of the wilful
wrougdoers, Such result In turn tends
to throw the decent man and the wilful
wrongdoer into close association, and In
latters level for the man who becomes
a laworeRker in one way unhsppily tend.
willing TO break it in many ways No
more scathing condemnation could be
visited upon law than is contained In
the words Of the Interstate commerce
the fact that Che numerous joint traffc
associations do technically violate the
law, they say; This decision OF the
Transmississippi case and tn. Join,
Traffic association case has produced ne
practical srect upon the railway opera
in fact, exist now as they did before
thsse decisions. and with the same gem
erA effect In justice to All raruss We
ought prSsasiy to ado ina. IT.. i = difis n,t
be operated with due regard TO the inter
est OF the shipper and the railway
without concerted action Of the kind al
forded thru these associations,
This means that the law as construed
by the supreme court 10 such that the
business OF the country cannot I've con-
that you give careful and early consider
alton 20 this subject, and II you find the
opinion of the interstate commeres com
Iaisson justified, that you amend the
law 30 as 60 ohViate 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 eurbing of snos-
nous fortunes, and he has done so by
recommending legislation for both In
come and an inheritance ta,. He b.
lieves the government should impose
graduc ed Inheritance tax, and pobsi-
BILE, q graduated income tax. Ne says:
II ain well aware that such subject
as this needs long and careful study In
order that the people may bseems fsmil'
may clearly soc the NECESSITY Of proceed.
ing with wisdom and sslf-restralnt, and
may make w their minds lust how far
they are willing to 40 In the matter;
while only trained legislators can York
out the project In necessary detail But
feel that in the near future our nation
ing for graduated inheritance tan by
which a steadily increasing rate OF duty
should be put upon all moneys or other
devise to any Individual or soTpors,ion.
II may be well TO make tie tax heavy
In proportion as the individual benefited
is remote of kin, In any event, IN my
judgment the pro rata OF the tax should
increase very heavily with thu increase
of the amount left to any one individual
after certain point has been reached,
IL is most desirable to encourage thrift
and ambition, and a potent source OF
thrift and ambition is the desire on the
part Of the hreadwinner to leave his chill
dren well on. This object can be attained
by making the tax very email on moder-
ate amounts of property left because
the rprime object should be to put con.
sstantly Increasing burden on the in h,In
it Is certainly of no benefit to this coun-
try to perpetuate,
There can be no question OF the eth
termining the conditions upon which any
gift or inheritance should he received,
Exactly how far the inheritance tax
would, as an incident, have the efrect OF
limiting the transmission by devise or
gift OF the enormous fortunes In question
II is not necessary at present TO discuss,
y is wise that progress In this direction
national Inheritance tax, while IL might
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 II was first
imposed 10y the act of July 6, 1897, when
the makers of the Constitution were
alive and at the head of Affairs. 1t was
a graduated tax; tho small in amount,
the rate was increased with the AMOUNT
eft to any Individual, exceptions being
made In the case of certain close kin. A
actt of July /, 1862; a minimum sum Of
81 900 In personal property being excepted
from taxation, the tax then becoming
progressive according to the remoteness
II kin. The wsr-revsnue act OF June IL,
1885 provided for an Inheritance tax on
any sum exceeding the value OF $4,000
the rate of tax Increasing both IN accord
anCe with the amounts left and In &C.
cordance with the lcgatee'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
an impose of excise which was both con
stitutional and valid. More recently the
court, In an opinion delivered by Mr.
Justice White, which contained an sS-
cesdingly able and elaborate discussion
OF the powers of the congress 10 impose
death duties, sustained the consultation
atty OF the Inheritance tan feature of the
waT-rsvenue act of 1898
10 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 tar, be-
cause II involves no question of the per
pstuation OF fortunes swollen to an I'M
healthy size. The question 10 In its
essence question of the proper adjust
nent OF burdens TO benefits. As the
law now stands IL Is undoubtedly dim
cult to devise a national income tan
which shall be constitutional. But
whether II is absolutely impossible 10 an
other question: and II possible IL IL most
certainly desirable. Tho first purely in
come tax law was past by tho congress-
In 1861, but the most important law deal
ing with the subject was that of 1853.
This the court held TO be unconstitu-
tional.
The question 10 undoubtedly very in
tricnte delicate. and troublesome. The
decision OF the court was only reached
by one majority. II ~ the law OF the
land, and. OF course 10 excepted as such
nga.r Hg.g Ia. II 4