Las Vegas daily optic., 1906-12-04

= &as amx~@&awwaaea aF th~
% H. &sa3 s~a@@Hs*Y a88 @s @&* 8sas@
Aa..RM 49, t8 SsH s#kssAasaEass.a t4 -
- ~ &asg FazNxAaas@s Ss&4EM ENsaEa@as
sss4&A aaa# a@ seaaasaass t&F &ssm EIIAa@~ -
FxrWsmS&@E III s&E saaaHs@T sHssHs EaAaak&ssr
sag AmHwar*T sass@aasss - ss1e - -
= So : s1sssa aazsssEaaA- ass8xz.d Sf asasHg
sWTasassea ~ lx@. saassss41 - tNFaF~4e u
gsthmF mEeaT12s IA sAsaaa& A& EmEEs&RE&ss %
rMtaFaazs* so mAs1* mKFs*ssssssAs - ~ -
s1sFFSxsEs eDzasssxpe essnazAsEa@n ana
.sr~ FszAsskhR4 Aha ttsese tHa eazs1I'
tlans raHglAra WITH - asnpaAslaas e
s~e sxRsaK h&rKa s&aGh eassszamakAaa g@aA4
Al q fase Fxha&g ~ large IN as ~ passsae
~FFl L. have "a TIE statute saMa&s Aas
snr2NSa.ae ef futa xnfsFosaeEt tEsazsSe
holh IaAgss and tESsss fsaEs1s ts@s -
ETSs ef ah~ country: tor Kas@ RESULT u 20
SEANk@ aeNmma xmAswum1 sxs~a wsnAstgFs @f
the Inv against Eh~4T VIII. and 10 paa
premium en- The hshavloE 6 ne salfsa
sruneaueFK sSeh . result In turn senas
% fsgFgFw the asnent MaH ass6 the 9aafms
wr0n9aaer inaa ssas@ AssoseA@sA0R. and in
TIE eesA 10 drag down she s0gn@eT 10 fas@
lattsr,s isssl: t"s tie man -. ssrssass .ss
% lose all respect for aAS ard 60 he
wiIling te break IL ln many wags No
more seathlnE condemnation @0tad De
.s'sa assH 80 -. ma tS,srz.s. = s.s,s %
commission wken, IN commenting npon
the faea that The numerous toint tEsfne
associations do ssehHicaias violate tae
nv; nsI,.s "a s,as1s ss1' supssne eoars IN a. d.
TvAnsnfswisx4rri ease ana the Joint
Traffae association case has produced no
pFartIraI effect upon the railway oFeTA-
in fact, exG&t n0w a. they did befars
these aeeAsA0ns. ard with a4s@ smaAe g~n"
eral effect In t8staee 10 all parties. W
ought probably 20 add that g Ia DIME ~
10 zee how our Interstate railways raatd
be operated with due regard 90 the later
est 1T the shipper and the railway
without concerted action of ahe kind at"
fordea thru these associations
This means that the Law as construed
by the supreme court ts such thai the
business of the country cannot he con-
Quoted without breaking t. recommend
that you give careful and early consider.
opinion OF the interstate eommeree CON-
mission justified. that yoa amend the
Law 20 a. 10 obviate the esil disciosed-
inheritance and income Tar.
u Was expected that the president
IN sss necessity ss % fop the ss ereins Of snor
nous fortunes. and he has done - by
recommending Legislation for both In"
come and an inheritance tar. lie be-
uFftH tff EuNNfHNktHL 8ft8A8A tHtkAbNt
graduated inheritance tar. and. II poass-
bic. a graduated Income tax- he says.
II am well aware that s0ch sub1sct
IN this needs long and careful study IN
lar with what 10 proposed 10 be done,
may clearly see the necessity OF pToeeed.
ing with wisdom and setf-Tssiralnt. and
may make UP their minds just how Iar
while only trained legislators can work
out the project In necessary detail. SUI
feel that In ths near future our nation
al legislators should enact law proHtd-
ing for a graduated inhsTttance tar by
which q steadily increasing rate of duty
| should be put upon all moneys or other
valuables coming BY gift. bequest: or
IadevIse TO any individual or corporation.
| II may be well TO make the tas heavy
| In proportion as the Individual henei1ted
In remote Of kin. in any event. sn my
| judgment the pro rata of the tax should
! Increase very heavily with the tncr.as y
after a certain point has been reached
IL is most desirable TO encourage thTifl
and ambition. and potent source oi
thrift and ambition Ia the desire on tne
| part of the breadwinner 20 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 inner
| itance Of those swollen fortunes whict
| Il ts certainly Of no benef1t TO this eoun'
try TO perpetuate.
There can he no question OF the eth
icai propriety Of the government thss de
termlning the conditions upon which any
gift or Inheritance should be received
| Exactly how far the inheritance ta'
would. as an incident. nave me anec' o :,
gift Of the enormous fortunes in quesuoI
| is not necessary nj present 10 discuss
II 10 wise that progress In this direcuoi
should be gradual A. iirst pesman,shh amen
be more substantial than any such TAI
has hitherto been, need not approximate
either In amount or In the extent OF tn
increase by graduation, 10 what sueh
tar should ultimately be.
Inheritance Tax Constitutional.
This species q tax has again and agaII
been imposed, altho only temporarily. b!
the national government; II was hrs
imposed by the act Of July 9. 1877. whe'
alive and at the head OF affairs. II wa
a graduated tax: tho small In amount
the rate was increased with the amour
left to any individual. exceptions beinl
made In the case Of certain close kin, !
similar tax was again imposed by tn
act of July l, 1862: minimum sum o
81. 900 in personal property being exeeete'
from taxation, the tax then becoming
progressive according to the remotenes
OF kin. The war-revenue act OF June II
1898, provided for an Inheritance tax o.
any sum exceeding the value OF $4,000
the rate OF tax increasing both In accord
| anCe with the amounts left and In &C
rordanee with the legatee's remotenes
Of kin. The supreme court has held tina
the succession tax imposed at the tim
OF the civil war was not direct tax bu
an impose Of excise which was both con
stitutional and valid. More recently IN
court, In an opinion delivered by MI
Justice White. which contained an eS
ceedihriy able and elaborate discussio
Of the powers OF the congress to impos
ality of the Inheritance tax feature OF th
war-revenue act OF h9S.
10 Income Tax Constitutional?
In It's incidents. and apart from III
main purpose of raising revenue, a
income tax stands on an entirely differ
ent footing from an Inheritance tax. be
cause Ii involves no question Of the per
healthy size. The question Ia IN II
essence q question Of the proper adjust
ment of burdens to benefits. AS th
Law now stands ii is undoubtedly diff
cult to devise a national income ia
which shall be constitutional. Blu
whether 1t Is absolutely impossible is an
ether question: and if possible II is mos
certainly desirable. The first purely in
come tax law was past by the congress
in 1851, but the most important law dea
ing with the subject was that of lS9
This the court held to be unconstitu
tional.
tricate. delicate. and troublesome, Th
! decision of the court was only reache
by one majority, II Is the law of tn
land, and, of course, Is excepted as sue
and Loyalty obeyed hy all good cttizen
Nevertheless. the hesitation eTIdentl
felt by the court as Who'll" in comm
to a conclusion. when considered to
Eether with the previous decisions o