The free lance. (Fredericksburg, Va.) 1885-1926, 1907-12-05

amount No legislation can by any
possibility guarantee The business com
munity against the results OF specula'
tive folly any more than II can gunran-
tee an individual against ihc results or
his extravaganza. When an individual
mortgages his house 10 buy an auto
mobile he Invites disaster. and when
wealthy men or men who pose rs such
or nre unscrupulously or foolishly enger
10 become such indulge In reckless
speculatlon. especially II 1t Is accom-
panied hy dishonesty. they Jeopardlze
not only their own future but the III
ture OF all their innocent fellow citi'
zcns. for they expose the whole busi-
ness community TO panic and distress
Can't Revise Tariff Now.
This country Is definitely committed
10 the protective system. and any eff
fort 20 uproot It could not but cause
widespread Industrial disaster In
other words. the principle " the pres
ent tariff law could not with wisdom
be changed. But in a country Of such
phenomenal growth as ours II f. prob
ably well that every dozen years or so
| the tariff laws should be carefully scru-
/ unized 20 rs 20 see that no excessive
or improper benefits are conferred
/ thereby. that proper revenue IS proVid'
ell and that our foreign trade Is en-
/ couraged. There must always he ~ .
] 80 b f..i mil
allow for the collection OF an ample
revenue. but which viii al least make
good the difference in cost Of produc-
/ lion here 0nd rhroad-ihat Is. the dlf.
/ ference in the labor cost here aud
abroad, for The well being Of the wage
worker must ever be At cardinal point
/ OF American policy The question
should De approached purely from n
/ business standpoint, both the time and
/ the manner OF the change being such
~ 10 arouse the minimum Of agitation
and disturbance I'm the business world
ant 10 give the least play for selfish
and fractional motives. The sole con
slderatlon should be to see that the
sum total OF changes represents the
public cool. This means that the sub
/ lect cannot vi,h wisdom be dealt with
In tie year preceding Il presidential
election. because ns matter Of fact
experience has cOnclusiyely shown that
At such a time Il Is impossible 10 get
men 10 treat II from the standpoint Of
the public good In my Judgment the
wise TING 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
herilance 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 taxation. / speak diiildenuy about
/ the Income tax because one scheme for
M income tax was declared unconstl-
tutional 10y the supreme court, while In
addition It Is difficult tax TO admin
lister IN It's practical Working, and great
care would have 10 bc exercised to see
that It was not cyaded by the very
men whom It was most desirable TO
have taxed Nevertheless n graduated
income tax Of The proper type would
be a desirable feature OF federal taxa
ton. and lt IS 70 be hoped that one
may he devised which the supreme
court will declare constitutional.
The Inheritance tax. however, Is
far better method OF taxation. The
government has the absolute right 10
decide rs 10 tie terms upon which q
man shall receive a Request from an
other. and this point In the devouton
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 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 burdcned aud 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
Germany's inheritance Tax.
The German law Is especially Inter
estlng TO us because II makes the In
heritance tax an imperial measure
while allotlng 10 the individual states
OF the empire n portion Of the pro
cceds and permitting them TO impose
taxes IN addition to those imposed by
the imperial government. Small inher-
ltances are exempt. but the tax Is so
sharply progressive that when the In
herltance IS still not very large, pro
vided It is not an agricultural or for
est land, It IS taxed at the rate OF .
per cent II Il goes to distant relatives.
There is no reason why In the United
States the national government should
not impose Inheritance taxes In addl-
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 ma
tlonal government. making a combined
maximum rate In some cases as high
as 25 per cent
To Tax Nonresidents Higher.
The tax should II possible be made
to bear more heavily upon those resid-
ing without the country than within 1t.
A heavy progressive tax upon a very
large fortune Is in no way such a tax
upon thrift or Industry as Ike tax
would be on small fortune. No ad-
vantage comes either to the country
rs n whole or to the individuals inner
Ting the money by permitting the
transm lssioD In their entirety OF the
enormous fortunes which would be ar
fected by such n tax, and as an Incl
dent TO its function OF revenue raising
such tax would help to preserve a
measurable equality OF opportunity for
the people Of the generations growing
10 manhood.
We have not the slightest sympathy
with that soclalistic idea which would
try to put laziness. thriftlessness and
IneGlclency on q par with Industry.
WHITNER { SACREY