The Worthington advance. [volume] (Worthington, Minn.) 1874-1908, 1907-12-06

amount. No Legislation Gun by any
possibility guarantee the business com.
munity against the results Ut specula
tive folly any more than it can guaran.
tee an individual against tho results of
his extravaganza. When On individual
bis 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.
zens. for they expose the whole bust.
ness community to panic and distress.
Can't Revise Tariff Now.
This country Is definitely committed
to the protective system. and my ef-
fort to uproot 1t 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 US ours 1t is prob
ably well that every dozen years or so
the tariff laws should be carefully scru-
tinized SO as to see That no excessive
or improper benefits are conferred
thereby. thnt proper revenue is proT1d
ed and that our foreign trade is en-
couraged. There must always be as a
minimum a tariff which will not only
allow for the collection Of an ample
revenue, but which will ut 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
of American policy. The question
should be approached purely from
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-
sideration should be to see that the
sum total Of changes represents the
public good. This means that the sub
ject cannot with wisdom be dealt with
in the year preceding presidential
election, because Us matter OF fact
has concusively shown that
at such time 1t 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
heritance tax should receive the cure
full attention, Of our legislators. In
my Judgment, both Of these taxes
should he part Of our system Of fed
eral taxation. speak dittidently about
the income tax because one scheme for
an income tax was declared unconsti-
tutional by the supreme court. while In
addition it Is a difficult tax to admin
lister in its practical working. ind 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 graduated
income tax OF, the proper type would
be desirable feature of federal taxa
ton. and It is to be hoped TINT one
may be devised which the supreme
court will declare constitutional.
The Inheritance tax. however, Is
q fur better method Of taxation. The
government has the absolute right to
decide as to the terms upon which =
man sl,all receive 4 beQuest from an
other. and this point IN the devolutton
Of property is especially appropriate
for the imposition Of tax. Laws i'm
posing such taxes have repeatedly been
placed upon the national statute books
and rs repeatedly declared constftu-
tfona1 by the courts. and these laws
contained the progressive principle
that IS. after certain amount Is reach
ed the bequest or gift in life or death
Is increasingly burdened md the rate
Of taxation is increased in proportion
to: the remoteness Of blood Of the man
receiving the bequest- These principles
are recognized already III the leading
civilized nations Of the world
Germany's Inheritance Tax.
The German law Is especially inter
esting to us because It makes the in
heritance tux an imperial measure
while alloting to the individual! states
Of the empire portion Of the pro-
goods and permitting them to impose
taxes IN addition to those imposed by
the imperfal government Small inner
[tances ere exempt but the tax IS SO
sharply progressive that when the in
heritnnce Is still not very large. pro
vtded It is not IN agricultural or for
est land. 1t IS ta=ed Mt the rate Of %
per cent II It goes to- distant relatives
There is no reason why IN the United
States the national government should
not impose Inheritance taxes in add
hon to those imposed by the states.
and when ves last had an inheritance
tax about oac-hulf Of the states levied
such taxes concuryently with the ma
Iional government. maxim: combined
maximum rate In some cases as high
az 25 per cent.