The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-03-19
INHERITANCE TAX.
Tafts Latest Suggestion is Nothing
 New as a Means of Revenue.

Taft's Latest Suggestion is Nothing
 New as a Means of Revenue.
 Washington Special
 In proposing a tax on inheritance President Taft is following one of the policies of President Roosevelt. an nounced in that strenuous executives message of April 14. 1906. The tax has been suggested by both President Roosevelt and President Taft to apply only in case 1t shall be found neces- sary to raise enough revenue for the national governments needs in some way apart from customs and internal revenue duties. In the light of a pros- pective deficit in national revenues there seems a need of some change from the ways and means Of the past, and so both the new President and Congress are looking hopefully to tax ation of the fortunes Of the dead.
 It, is nothing new for the govern ment of the United States to impose such tax in the language of revenue: Tn 1797. when. in the language of the constitution were alive and at the head of affairs,"t sucn tax was lad. It was graduated precisely as the of little fortune. large for those who had acquired much. Exceptions were made for close kin. as it is proposed
 Il all modern inheritance laws to
 
 ,Jsed by the act of July 1. 1882, for the needs of the civil war. In 1898 Inc Spanish war revenue act provided for an n6s tn, tax on any sa ed valid by the Supreme Court of the United States on the ground that 1t was not a direct tax. but an impost which was held both constitutional and
 These are precedents. then for the proposed national taxation of lnheri- tances. But new element comes in where, the dual government of 9f,,, the United States Is considered. Thirty
 five of the forty-five States now have inheritance taxation as means of trial by the national government of a law to tax inherited fortunes will bring into conflict the pationaI and State powers. The hint of such a that has been introduced in the Con- necticut General Assembly, protestng g against any attempt Of the national government to levy an inheritanea tax due and not the nations.
 The lawmakers of the United States instinctlvely turn 10 tho experience of the old world in considering an inner continental Europe have had such a fia fiaN no (" day inclined to abandon ii Great Britain by the finance act of 1907 may tax an estate one-rOurth Of its value as maximum limit. the "death duties" running from l per cent on an estate of $500 to 25 per cent. of an estate running above $16,- OOO 900 in value. These duties form a large part of the national revenue of Britain from direct taxation Tn this connection 1t is interesting to note that the direct taxes in Britain amount and that in the United States here have been no direct taxes since 1888 when they amounted to only s1566 The total revenue of Great Britain for the year l907S was about $7S0. .000, 00C and that for the United States In the same year was $500 ,O00,00
 The lesson of the foregoing figures Is fl the United States Is to follow the example of older nations. that d. rect taxes must become a larger part of the nations revenue in the future the historical side of the matter. the inheritance tax Is strongly urged by President Taft. as It was urged by President Roosevelt as being just and economically sound. In this connection the question arises how national and State taxation under the inheritance principle may be reconcfled. If the nation is to tax inheritance. must not the tax laws of the several States be recast7
 Tn Iillnols estates have been taxed since the enforcement of the act oi l 1895, which has been upneld by the | United States Supreme Court. Il l should be said here that the principle