The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1911-02-01

Columbia, Jan. 26.-After a pro-
longed discussion, the House today
gave it's approval for an inheritance
tax. The bill is very long and COM
plicated, and members voted for the
measure on faith that the bill had
been properly prepared by Mr.. Rem
bert and in advocacy of the general
principle of an inheritance tax.
Mr.. Ashley called it fool" bill,
but the House by a vote Of "a to Il,
on straight vote, refused to kill the
bill on previous vote the House by
AZ to A declined to continue the bill
until next session.
The discussion on the bill was on
the plan of taxation rather than on
the immediate bill that was passed
by the House.
Mr.. Doar had the exemption for
children increased to $4,000; the bill
carried $4,000 exemption. Otherwise
the bill was adopted. The widows
exemption is fixed at $4,000. The
tax varies according to the nearness
Of the relationship, going from one
half to two per cent.
Mr.. Belser objected to Mr.. Rem
bert's Inheritance bill. The bill, he
felt, was a robber in Santa Clan5c
sarb and not real Santa Clause. The
inheritance tax, he thought, was en-
tirely foreign to our traditions and
policies. Only three Southern States
have such a tax, and they exempt
parents and child, husband and wife,
and under the pending bill there
were no exemptions. He argued that
1t was not just and fair to have a
minority pay such a considerable por-
ton Of the taxes. The Judge of Pro-
bate is allowed one per cent Of the in
heritance tax he collects, and this, he
thought, was a wrong policy. The
whole scheme he thought dangerous.
Under the income tax system as
long as a man lives he can pay the
tax, but he thought it wrong to go
beyond the grave in taxation.
The bill puts a premium on setting
the tax within six months, which he
felt was wrong.
Ny Relser argued forciLly against
The bin.
Mr.. Williams. of Aiken, argued that
the bill was excessive and unnecessary.
Mr.. Davis, Of Barnwell, opposed
the bill chiefly on the ground that it
was double taxation and it taxed poor
estates
Mr.. Geo. r. Rembert, Of Columbia,
said he expected opposition to the
bill as there was always difficulty in
securing constructive legislation. The
bill was Democratic, or at least ne
hoped that it was purely Democratic.
Mr.. Rembert insisted that he had
no demagogism in his makeup. He
said fortunes were like snowballs, in
creasing as they went along and his
effort was to keep fortunes within
limitations.
The possessor Of n five million dol
lar estate, he argued, meant that he
did not pay as much proportionately
as the poor man.
Mr.. Rembert had been studying
and working on the inheritance tax
matter for months.
He took up the effect of the tax on
million dollar estate and said he
knew several million dollar estates.
On million dollar estate there would
he tax Of $4,000, the orphan would
inherit $950,O00, and the State would
get $50,0000 as an inheritance levy.
On small estates the levy is so small
it cannot be felt.
He then took up the matter Of the
constitutionality Of the bill. The only
way to settle the matter finally is to
submit it to the Supreme Court as the
exact question has never been settled,
but he thought it would stand and
cited the Magoon case from Illinois
and other causes that he thought
would prove parallel. He said that
SS States now have an inheritance
tax.
Mr.. Rembert showed great famil-
iarity with the inheritance tax law.
Mr.. Belser maintained that the in
heritance tax bill was wrong in prin-
ciple and undertook to disturb recog-
nized law
The tax dodging was not confined
to the rich, was his observation. Rich
and poor alike were tax dogers and
new sources OF taxation was not the
correct remedy for the present trou-
bles. The total taxable values. he
argued, was six times what it now