The sun., 1910-06-21

two decsdsnts end receive legaciea o
precisely the sams amount will gay lnheri.
tancs tax a different rates according 70
the size Of the estate left by the decedsn :.
rsspectivsiy THIS uasAhOd or graduation
has been condemned a. opposed 10 sound
policy
Our pr~ent law having no system oi
graduation. bat Distinguishing merely be-
tween those Intimately related TO the de-
ceased and coilateral- and strangers, does
not evoke the senae of injustice a. would
inevitably the new sysiep
The pFopriety of progfe-siv W inherit ance
taA is ahnndantly supported by the report
Of the spectral tax comUH Hssion of thia state
transmitted 10 the Legislature In January.
iuo7 This commission. Nhich was broadly
representative IN character. vas composed
Of Warner Mailer. samuel a. Ordway. Fdwih
r. A. SeiEman. Thomas = Or ldy. MsrOn
D Y. Lewis. George r. Malby. Martin SAKE
srencer WarniCk. &. Fred BOshaTt
sherman Moreland Charles " Mead
George NJ Palmer and Arthur Z. Wade
The report of the commis.t ton, while pro
po-ine progressive inheritance tar.
strongly condemned the method Of Eradua-
lion proposed by The present bill The
commission said
-Bsanre deciding upon the rate Of gradua-
tion. howcv r. We must decide on the
method This involves the question - 10
whether theiaN Is TO be levied and computed
ur,on the entire estate transferred. - is
the plan Of the present New York law. or
upon the individual share coming 10 the
recipient. which - the plan adopted by the
more modern 81 tuteS of Wisconsin and
California The only substantial reason for
assessing and computing the tax upon the
entire estate rather than upon the individual
share received is that greater revenue y
thereby produced
we think. however. that this objection
70 taHing the rates and percentages would
prod,ce equally good results on the
other hand. reasons oi fairness and Justice.
a. well a. sound theory. are on the side OF
the assessment and computation o. the
ta1 upon the individual share received.
For recipients who belong TO precisely the
same class and receive precisely the same
amount will thereby IN all cases paw pre-
cisely the same tax whereas Il the per-
csntaRe OF tax were determined by the
siRe of the estate. one of such a class might
Be- compelled 10 pay far more than another
-For example. n the rate Of tax ia per
cent 70 collateral relatives. In the case OF
email estates. rising n IS per cent 10 such !
relativpz IN the case Of very large estates, |
a cousin who receives legacy OF N.mo
fPom q man Of moderate means would /
have % paw tax Of only 40 upon Il, whereas |
a similar cousin Of a man Of great wealth /
Who receives a similar legacy Of e.OOo
would have 70 pay a tax Of siSo upon Il.
1t was because Of precisely such dis
elimination a. this that the progressive /
inheritance tar law passed in Wisconsin /
IN 1901 was declared Unconstitutional. and /
while II perhaps cannot he claimed TO be
Unconstitutional in This state such a state
OF Affairs is certainly unjust and 10 be
avoided
The reservation by the supreme Court /
Of the United states of It's de, sion upon
this important constitutional question az
lords. IN our opinion a controlling reason
Why the method which the supreme Court
has declared 10 involve profound inequality
ahould no, be adopted. ana why. on the
otheT hand. the method approved by the
supsme Court and which We how advo-
cate should be adopted.
There is smother reason. which We may
perhaps call a sociological one. for the
sdoption Of the plan which Ne advOcate.
namely. the calculation Of the tax upon the
amount coming 10 the individual rec pient
rather than upon the entire estate The
result Of this plan h 10 make The tax some
what les severe whore an estate Is divided
among q number Of benehciaries than in
cases where it is left ~ a single egatee.
We think it Win he generally agreed
that Il is desirable that enormous fortunes
should be widely distributed aud M, handed
down 10 a single recipient 10 be increased
and constantly 10 grow 70 even greater
ere. Our states have never tolerated the
law OF pnmOgeniture. We believe there 10
= strong public opinion m favor OF the
diffusion OF estates. We believe. therefore.
that the adoption Of the plan here rsCom-
mended. by reducing 10 some extent the
taA 10 be pad Where large estate IL divided
among many recipients. Will tend In some !
n.essuIe a. least 20 The dIdus,ou OF The
enormous wealth which has been netped !
~ by some Of our more successful leiiON
CTtizens
The introduction OF the plan OF grading
the ta1 by the size Of the estate leads 10 these
inequai.ties ana -. m our opinion. a sum
eisnt reason ior changing the plan of con-
puting the tax upon the entire estate which |
has sAlsted IN New loTk IoT srNeral years
For these reasons. therefore your rommi--
sion recommends that the tax he as.---~d
and computed upon the individual share
received rather than upon the " hole estate
The passage OF uiil for q progressive
Inheritance taK With a suitable method oi
graduation which would Bppsal 70 tho com
mon sense Of fairness might -0iye in some
degree ana perhaps altogether the question
OF procuring be needed incTeas. 100 T-ve- =
nues The extent TO which q would an ord d
additional income II OF course difnCut 10
estimate With precision.
I do not wish N withhold from you The y
Of other means of raising
revenue but submit 20 on the entire matter.
urging upon YOU the necrs-Ity Of making y
immediate provision 10 meet the Dutlays
that have been authorized.
Gov Hughes has this 70 say on the
question of direct nominations: 4,
! recommend foT your consideration the :
subject Of the amendment of the laW re- b
latinE N primaries. tho making n suitable r.
provision for direct nominations nj candi- u
dates for public Office and IN connection y
thereWiih provision for representative and
responsible party management 10
The people are dissatisfied with existing G,
conditions and demand q change what q
ever may be said Of imperfections IN the n
laws relating 70 this matter IN other iuTis- n
iictions there can be no question but that Il
ihege laws reflect a wholesome sentiment b
which is countrywide and cannot he denied a
That sentiment - that the Instrumental
Iies of party management shall not be 30 I
sTranRed A. n facilitate the purposes Of G,
hose who would subvert government TO q
her selfish advantage u ts a sentiment b
hat demands for the members Of DOliti- al
,al parties simple and direct methods by n