The Spanish Fork press. [volume] (Spanish Fork, Utah) 1902-current, 1906-12-06

shown slnS by the investigation OF the
tobacco and sugar trusts as TO the init
would like to combine for the purpose OF
preventing big shipper from maintain
ing improper advantages at the expense
OF small shippers and OF the general pub
lie Such a combination. Instead of being
forbidden by law, should be favored. In
other words. II should be permitted to
railroads to make agreements, provided
these agreements were sanctioned by the
interstate commerce commission ana
were published. With these two condi-
tons compiled with II is impossible TO
see what harm such n combination could
do to the public at large. II is pupnc
evil to have. on the statute books a law
Incapable of fun enforcement because
both judges and Jurles realize that Its
fun enforcement would destroy the busl-
ness OF. the country: tor the result is to
make decent railroad men violators of
the law against their will. and to put a
premium on the behavior of the wilful
wrongdoers. Such result IN turn tends
Wronsdoer into close assoei2tlon, and In
The end to drag down the former to the
latter's level; for the man who becomes
2 iaw6reakef IN one way uhhappily tends
willing to break IT in many ways, No
more seathins condemnation could be
listed or upon ,hs Inam
commission when. In commenting upon
the fact that the numeSous jolpt. traffic
associations do technically YlSlate the
Wnitcd states supreme court Nj the
Transmississippi case and the Joint
Traffic association case has produced no
practical effect upon the railway opera
lions OF the country. Such associations,
in fact. exist now as they did before
these decisions, and with the same gen
eral effect. In Justice to all parties. we
ought probably to add that Il is difficult
to see how our interstate railways could
be operated with due regard to the inter
est of the shipper and the railway
without concerted action OF the kind af-
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, l 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
law so as to obvate 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-
recommending legislation for both In
come and an Inheritance tax. He be-
lieves the government should impose n
graduated Inheritance tax. and. II posi-
BILE, a graduated income tax. He says:
II am well aware that such subject
| as this needs long and careful study In
order that the people may become famil-
| may clearly see the necessity of proceed,
| ing with wisdom and self-restraint, and
may make np their minds Just how st t far
while only trained legislators can work
| out the project in necessary detail. But
| | feel that in the near future our nation
| al Legislators should enact a law provid-
| ing for a graduated Inheritance tax by
which IA 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
| judgment the pro rata of the tax should
| increase very heavily with the Increase
| of the amount left to any one individual
after a certain point has been reached
| 1t is most desirable to encourage thrlf,
| and ambition, and potent source OF
thrift and ambition is the desire on the
part of the breadwinner to leave his chill;
| dren we'll off. 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 a con
stantly increasing burden on the inner
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
! gift or Inheritance should be received
| Exactly how far the inheritance ta'
would, as an incident, have the erect o
| limiting the transmission by devise oil
gift OF the enormous fortunes In question
II is not necessary at present to discuss
1t Is wise that progress In this director
should be gradual AT first a permanen
national inheritance tax, while II nigh
be more substantial than any such ta1
has hitherto been. need not approximate
either in amount or in the extent or tn'
Increase by graduation, to what such I
tax should ultimately be.
inheritance Tax Constitutional.
This species of tax has again and agail
been imposed, altho only temporarily, b!
Ia national Government. 1t WAS mrs
imposed by the act of July 6, 1897. whei
the makers of the Constitution wer
alive and at the head of affairs. 1t wa
a graduated tax: tho small in amount
the rate was increased with the amour
left to any individual, exceptions bein
made in the case of certain close Kin. -
similar tax was again imposed by tn
act of July /. 1862 minimum sum O
81, 900 in personal property being excepte
progressive according to the remotenes
| Of kin The war-revenue act of June i
1898, provided for an Inheritance tax o
any sum exceeding the value of $1,000
the rate of tax increasing both in accord
ance with the amounts left and in aC
cordance with the legatee's remotenes
Of kin. The supreme court mas h fen t tna
of the civil war was not a direct tax ot
an impose of excise which was both cor
stitutional and valid More recently n u
Justice White, which contained an e'
ceedingly able and elaborate discusslo
of the powers OF tne CDnSItSS " ilHpos
death duties, sustained the constitution
atty of the inheritance tax feature of II
war-revenue act of 1898
Is Income Tax Constitutional?
! I'm its incidents, and apart from Il
main purpose of raising revenue, q
income tax stands on an entirely diffe
emit footing from an inheritance tax, b
cause 1t involves no question of the pc
petuation of fortunes swollen to an vi
healthy size. The question is in /
essence a question of the proper adjus
! ment of burdens to benefits AS Il
law now stands II is undoubtedly diff
cult to devise a national income "a
| which shall be constitutional h
} whether IL is absolutely impossible is a
| other question; and If possible it is mo
! certainly desirable. The first purely 4
! come tax law was past by the congre
[ in 1861, but the most important law dea
ing with the subject was that of Isl
THIS the court held to be unconstit
tonal.
, The question Is undoubtedly very I
5 tricate, delicate. and troublesome. r.
2 decision of the court was only reach
by one majority. 1t is the law of 4
: land, and, of course, is excepted as SUI
I and Loyalty obeyed by all good either
Nevertheless, the hesitation evident
! felt by the court as whole in comil
u to conclusion, when considered I
WN..aWu 1-g0N NNI