The Morris County chronicle., 1907-12-03

There is no reason why In the United
States the national government should
not impose inheritance taxes in addi-
ton to those imposed by the states,
and when we last had an Inheritance
tax about one-half of the states levied
such taxes concurrently with the na-
tional government, making a combined
maximum rate in some cases as high
as 25 per cent
| To Tax Nonresdents Higher.
The tax should If possible be made
| to bear more heavily upon those resid-
| ing without the country than within it.
A heavy progressive tax upon very
large fortune is in no way such tax
upon thrift or industry as a like tax
would be on small fortune. No adj
vantage comes either to the country
as a whole or to the individuals inher-
iting the money by permitting the
transmission in their entirety of the
enormous fortunes which would be af.
| fected by such a tax, and as an Incl
dent to its function of revenue raising
| such a tax would help to preserve a
measurable equality of opportunity for
| the people of the generations growing
to manhood.
We have not the slightest sympathy
with that socialistic idea which would
try to put laziness, thriftlessness and
inefficiency on a par with industry.
thrift and efficiency, wnlcn wouIu
strive to break up not merely private
property. but, what is far more impor
tant, the home, the chief prop upon
which our whole civilization stands.
Such theory if ever adopted would
mean the ruin of the entire country.
but proposals for legislation such as
this herein advocated are directly OPP
posed to this class of socialistic the
cries.
Enforcement of the Law.
A few years ago there was loud COM
plant that the law could not be in
voked against wealthy offenders. There
is no such complaint now. The course
of the department Of justice during the
last few years has been such as to
make it evident that no man stands
above the law, that no corporation Is
so wealthy that it cannot be held to ac-
count. Everything that can be done
under the existing law and with the
existing state of public opinion, which
so profoundly influences both the courts
and juries. has been done, but the laws
themselves need strengthening. They
should be made more definite, so that
no honest man can be led unwittingly
to break them and SO that the real
wrongdoer can be readily punished.
Moreover, there must be the public
opinion back of the laws or the laws
themselves win be of no avail. The
criminal laws today are sentimentality
and technicality. For the latter the
remedy must come from the hands of
the legislatures, the courts and the law
yers. The other must depend for its
cure upon the gradual growth of a
sound public opinion which shall insist
that regard for the law and the de-
mands Of reason shall control all other
influences and emotions in the jury
box. Both of these evils must be re-
moved or public discomfort with the
criminal law will continue.
lnjunctions.
Instances of abuse in the granting
Of injunctions in labor disputes con-
tinue to occur, and the resentment in
the minds of those who feel that their
rights are being invaded and their lib
erty Of action and of speech unwar-
rantably restrained continues likewise
to grow. Much of the attack on the
wholly without warrant, but am con-
strained to express the belief that for
some of 1t there Is warrant This aues-
tion is becoming one of prime impor-
tance, and unless the courts will deal
with 1t in effective manner it Isl GER
tain ultimately to demand some form
of legislative action. 1t would be most
unfortunate for our social welfare If
we should permit many honest and
law abiding citizens to feel that they
had just cause for regarding our courts
with hostility. earnestly commend
| to the attention Of the congress this
matter, so that some way may be de-
vised which will limit the abuse of in
functions and protect those rights
which from time to time it unwarrant-
ably invades. Moreover, discomfort is
often expressed with the use of the
process Of injunction by the courts.
not only in labor disputes, but where
state laws are concerned. refrain
from discussion of this question as
am informed that 1t win soon receive
the consideration of the supreme court.
The process of injunction is an es-
sential adjunct Of the courts doing its
work well, and as preventive measures
are always better than remedial the
wise use Of this process is from every
standpoint commendable. But where
1t is recklessly or unnecessarily used
the abuse should be censured. above
all by the very men who are properly
anxious to prevent any effort to shear
the courts OF this necessary power.
The courts decision must be final. The
protest is only against the conduct OF
Individual judges In needlessly anticI-