Evening journal., 1907-12-03

ject can only accomplish a certain
amount. No legislation can by any
possibility guarantee the business com
munity against the results Of specula-
tive folly any more than it can guaran-
tee an individual against the results Of
his extravagance When an individual
mortgages his house to buy an auto
mobile he invites disaster, and when
wealthy men or men who pose as such
or are unscrupulously or foolishly eager
to become such indulge in reckless
speculation. especially if It is accom-
panied by dishonesty, they jeopardize
not only their own future. but the fu-
ture of all their innocent fellow citi-
Eens, for they expose the whole busi-
ness community to panic and distress.
Can't Revise Tariff Now.
This country is definitely committed
to the protective system. and any ef-
fort TO uproot it could not but cause
widespread industrial disaster In
other words. the principle of the pres
ent tariff law could not with wisdom
be changed. But in a country of such
phenomenal growth as ours it is prob
ably well that every dozen years OF so
the tariff laws should be carefully scru-
tinized so as TO see that no excessive
or improper benefits are conferred
thereby, that proper revenue is provid-
ed and that our foreign trade is en-
couragod. There must always be as
minimum a tariff which will not only
allow for the collection OF an ample
revenue. but which VIII at least make
good the difference in cost of produc-
ton here and abroad-that is, the diff
ference in the labor cost here and
abroad, for the well being of the wage
worker must ever be cardinal point
cf American policy. The question
should be approached purely from a
business standpoint. both the time and
the manner OF the change being such
as to arouse the minimum of agitation
and disturbance in the business world
and to give the least play for selfish
and factional motives. The sole con-
eidei alton should be to see that the
sum total OF changes represents the
public good. This means that the sub
ject c.tnnot with wisdom be dealt with
in the yem preceding a presidential
election. because as a matter Of fact
experience has conclusively shown that
at such a time it is impossible to get
men to treat it from the standpoint Of
The public good. In my judgment the
wise time to deal with the matter is
Immediately after such election.
Income Tax and inheritance Tax.
When our tax laws are revised the
question Of an income tax and an in
aeritance tax should receive the care
ful attention Of our legislators. In
my Judgment. both Of these taxes
should be part of our system OF fed
eral taxHtion. l speak dinldently about
the income tax because one scheme for
an income tax was declared unconsti-
tutional by the supreme court. while in
addition it is difficult tax to admin
lister in its practical working, and great
care would have to be exercised to see
that it was not evaded by the very
men whom it was most desirable to
have taxed. Nevertheless a graduated
income tax Of the proper type would
be a desirable feature of federal taxa
ton, and it is to be hoped that one
may be devised which the. supreme
court will declare constitutional.
The inheritance tax. however, is
a far better method OF taxation. The
government has the absolute right to
decide as to the terms upon which a
man shall receive a bequest from an
other. and this point in the devolution
Of property is especially appropriate
for the imposition of a tax. Laws i'm
posing such taxes have repeatedly been
placed upon the national statute books
and as repeatedly declared constitu-
tional by the courts. and these laws
contained the progressive principle
that is, after a certain amount is reach
ed the bequest or gift in life or death
is increasingly burdened and the rate
Of taxation is increased in proportion
to the remoteness Of blood Of the man
receiving the bequest. These principles
are recognized already in the leading
civilized nations Of the world.
Germanys Inheritance Tax.
The German law is especially inter
estlng to us because it makes the in
heritance tax an imperial measure
while alloting to the individual states
Of the empire a portion Of the pro-
ceeds and permitting them to impose
taxes in addition to those imposed by
the imperial government. Small inher-
itances are exempt. but the tax is so
sharply progressive that when the in
heritance is still not very large. pro
vided it is not an agricultural or a for
est land, It is taxed at the rate Of %
per cent II It goes to distant relatives
There is no reason why I'm the United
States the national government should
not impose inheritance taxes in addi-
tion 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 ma
tional government making a combined
maximum rate in some cases as high
as % per cent
To Tax Nonresidents 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 a very
large fortune is in no way such a tax
upon thrift or industry as a like tax
would be on a small fortune. No ad-
vantage Gomez aither TO the country
as whole OF c tsfa individuals inher-
iting the mo-- permitting the
transmission 4, ~e.f entirety of the