The Jeffersonian. [volume] (Atlanta, Ga.) 1907-1917, 1912-11-14

limit that power. 1t merely provides
that if testator, denying the ties
of relationship and friendship shall
bequeath more than half of the dis
possible portion of his estate to any
religious, charitable or educational
purpose, then that the legatee shall
pay an inheritance tax on the whole
legacy. The restraint imposed by
this provision on testators is certain
ly a very mild restraint, and in my
individual opinion is entirely too
mild in respect to donations for reli-
gious purposes.
The learned divines who issued
this circular letter say that our pres
ent inheritance tax law does not con-
Germ itself with donations inter
vivos. This amendment is true as
respects the statutes which have
been passed to put the Constitution
into force, but it is in error as re-
CARDS the clause in the Constitution
on the subject of the inheritance tax.
BY that article the Legislature is
empowered to levy an Inheritance
tax on all inheritances, legacies and
donations. The fact that it has not
levied taxes, called in the Constitu-
ton Inheritance taxes, whether they
are really SO Or not, on donations
inter vivos is because those laws have
been drawn by inexpert legislators
who did not realize that an inheri-
lance tax is a vain and useless
thing, and can be avoided and made
nugatory, if the laws do not contain
provisions bringing within their
scope donations inter vivos, because
without such provisions testator
could give all of his property away
before his death, and thus escape all
inheritance taxes. This is actually
what the late John A. Morris did.
In all modern, well-drawn inherit
ance tax laws, donations inter vivos
are taken into consideration in en-
forcing their provisions, and. in levy
ing this tax. A few weeks ago the
newspapers contained a full descrip-
ton Of the appearance of Mrs. e. H.
Hartman and her daughter before
the inheritance tax commissioners of
New York and of the questions put
to them under oath as to what pres
ents or donations Mr. Hartman has
made to them in his lifetime.
In this connection permit me to
call attention to some misstatements
IudC nave U00u udO0 III regard TO
this inheritance tax 1t has been
said that this tax would have fallen
on the Delgado donation to the city.
This is not true. The city of New
Orleans is part Of the State gov
eminent, and neither the State gov
eminent, nor any part thereof, nor
any Of her public institutions owned
and controlled by the State are in
the purview of this tax. No express
exemptions of this kind were put in
to this law, because no such exemp-
tons were supposed to be necessary,
it being fundamental principle
that no governmental authority and
no public property is subject to tax
alton. For these reasons the state
ments are not true, that donations
are liable to this tax made to the
Charity Hospital, which is also
State owned institution, supported
by State taxation, and donations to
the Tulane University a State insti-
tuition, supported under contract be-
tween the State and the Tulane
Board whose property and revenue
are dedicated irrevocably to that pur-
pose, and by said contract are speci-
ally exempted from all taxation, and
donations to that Board to be used
in the support Of this State institu-
ton. The tax question is applicable
only to private institutions. If this
explanation does not satisfy the OBJ
ipctOrS then the whole matter can