The Richmond palladium and sun-telegram. [volume] (Richmond, Ind.) 1907-1939, 1907-12-03

of the empire portion OF the pro-
ceeds and permitting them to impose
taxes in addition to those imposed by
the imperial government Small inner
itances are exempt, but the tax is so
sharply progressive that when the in
heritance is still not very large. pro
vided 1t IS not an agricultural or for
est land. il is taxed at the rate OF -
per cent If ii goes 10 distant relatives.
There is no reason why in the United
States the national government should
not impose Inheritance taxes in a.ldi-
ton 10 those imposed Ivy The states.
and when we last had an inheritance
tax about one-half of the states levied
such taxes concurrentjy with th. 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,
\ heavy progressive tax upon very
large fortune is in no way such 4 tax
upon thrift or industry as Il like tax
would be on Il small fortune. No ad
vantage comes either to the country
as a whole or to the individuals inner
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
of -,
such tax would help to preserve
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. which would
strive to breah up not merely private
property, but. what is far more impor-
tant, the home, the chief prop upon
which our whole civilization stands.
Such a 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 &C
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 will be of no avail. The
two great evils in the execution of our
criminal laws today are sentimentalty
and technicality. For the latter the
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.
Injunctions.
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
use Of the process of injunction is
wholly without warrant, but | am con-
strained to express the belief that for
some of it there is warrant. This qucs-
ton is becoming one of prime impor-
lance, and unless the courts will deal
with it in effective manner it is 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
Jaw 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. l refrain
from discussion of this question as
am informed that it will soon receive
the consideration of the supreme court
The process of injunction is an es
sential adjunct of the courts doing its
work we'll, and as preventive measures
are always better than remedial the
wise use of this process is from every
standpoint commendable. But where
it 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
Tho courts decision D1uSr ha final The