Custer County Republican. (Broken Bow, Neb.) 1882-1921, 1906-12-06


would like TO combine for the purpose OF
preventing n big shipper from maintain
Ing improper advantages at the expense
OF small shippers and OF the general pub
lic Such a combination, instead OF being
forbidden by law, should be favored. In
other words, IL should be permitted TO
railroads to make agreements. provided
these agreements were sanctioned by the
Interstate commerce commission ana
were published. With these two eondi-
see what harm such a combination could
do to the public at large. IL Is public
evil to have on the statute books law
incapable OF full enforcement because
both judges and Jurles realize that its
fun enforcement would destroy the bust
make decent railroad men violators of
the law against thoir Will, and to put
premium on the behavior OF the wiful
| wrongdoers. Such result In turn tendp
| TO throw the decent man and the wilful
wrongdoer into close association, and In
the end 60 drag down the former to the
lawbreaker In one way unhappliy tends
| to lose all respect for law and to be
more ,e scSthins condemnation could be
visited upon a law than is contained in
the words of the Interstate commerce
the fact that the numerous joint traffic
associations do technically violate the
law, they say: The decision OF the
| Transmlssissippi case and the Joint
| Traffic association case has produced no
prsctS9l effect upon the her railway opera
these decisions. and with the same gem
Susht e proSabS 10 aSs aas p IS dcS
| to see how our interstate railways could
| be operated with due regard to the Inter-
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 II. recommend
that you give careful and early consider d .,I,
| alton to this subject, and II you ind the
| opinion of the interstate commerce COM
mission Justified that you amend the
law so as to obviate the evil disclosed
Inheritance and Income Tax.
II was expected that the president
would refer in some way TO his belief
In the necessity for the curbng 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 q
| graduated inheritance tax, and IL posi-
Bile, graduated income tax. He says:
~ am well aware that such subject
as this s. needs long and careful r study 20 yi N
lar with what is proposed to be done,
may clearly see the necessity of proceed,
ing with wisdom and self-restraint. and
may make up their minds just how far
they are willing to go In the matter;
while only trained legislators can work
|
| feel that in the near future our nation
| al legislators should enact law provid~
ing for graduated inheritance tax by
which a 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 we'll to make the tax heavy
In proportion as the Individual benehted
is remote of kin. In any event. In my
ths % Sf the
of the amount left to any one individual
after certain point has been reached.
1t is most desirable to encourage thrift
and ambition. and a 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
tance of those swollen fortunes which
1t is certainly of no benefit to this coun-
try to perpetuate.
ical propriety of the government thus de-
termining the conditions upon which any
Exactly how far the inheritance tas
would, as an incident. have the effect o.
limiting the transmission by devise o.
gift of the enormous fortunes In question
It is not necessary at present to discuss
1t is wise that progress in this dlrecuoi
should be gradual. At first permanen
national inheritance tax, while 1t Nigh
be more substantial than any such ta'
has hitherto been, need not approximate
| either in amount or IN the eNteHt vi tH'
increase by graduation, to what such
tax should ultimately be.
Inheritance Tax Constitutional.
This species of tax has again and agar
been imposed, altho only temporarily, by
the national government. 1t was first
imposed by the act of July s. 1877, wher
the makers of the Constitution Were
a graduated tax; tho small in amount
the rate was Increased with the amount
left to any individual exceptions beinl
similar tax was again imposed by the
act of July /, 1852; minimum sum OF
$1,000 in personal property being b exceptes
progressive according to the remotenes.
OF kin. The war-revenue act OF June 10
1888 provided for an Inheritance tax OF
any sum exceeding the value of $4,000
the rate of tax increasing both In accord
ance with the amounts lett and In ac
cordance 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 ou
an Impose of excise which was both con
stitutional and valid. More recently tn
court, in an opinion delivered by MI
, Justice White, which contained an ex
of the powers of the congress to impos
} death duties, sustained the constitution
! ality OF the inheritance tax feature OF TN
| War-reVenue act OF 1898.
, Is Income Tax CONSTITUTIONAL
"In its incidents, and apart from tn
main purpose of raising revenue, a
; income tax stands on an entirely differ
! ent footing from an inheritance tax, be
cause 1t involves no question of the pei
1 petuation of fortunes swollen to an un
healthy size The question Is in II
essence a question of the proper adjust
; ment of burdens to benefits. AS tn
I law now stands II is undoubtedly diff
E | cult to devise a national income Ia
which shall be constitutional. Blu
, whether It Is absolutely impossible Is ar
other question; and II possible 1t Is mos
J certainly desirable. The first purely In
? come tax law was past by the congress
in 1861, but the most important law dea
ing with the subject was that of 1S9
= This the court held to be unconstitl
tional
0 THE question Is undoubtedly very II
5 tricate, delicate, and troublesome. I'll
decision of the court was only reache
by one majority. 1t is the law of tn
:. land, and, of course is excepted as sue
I and Loyalty obeyed by all good citizen
: Nevertheless, the hesitation evidentl
felt by the court as a whole in comm
to a conclusion, when considered Il
= gether with the previous decisions G
!, the subject may perhaps indicate Il
!, possibility of devising 4 constitution
II income-tax law which shall substaI