The true Democrat. [volume] (Bayou Sara [La.]) 1892-1928, 1912-10-19
JUDGE LAWRASON ON THE TAX
AMENDMENTS.
Continued from first pageJ

| legal and testamentary, are crea
tons OF the law, but it is fact nev,
ertheless.
The disposition OF property after
death is controlled by the law, and
not by the will of the deceased, eX.
cept as he is given permission by
the state. This exception proves the
case, for unless one has full control,
he does not control. If any one
thinks he can leave his property to
be distributed after his death accord
ing to his own sweet will, let him
try it, and it will be seen how quick
~ the law will step in and set his
distribution right. After death the
distribution of property to heirs, lie.
gal or testamentary, is by grant of
the state
SO that the state is interfering
with no right Of property by an lii
heritance tax. When you realize all
this you see that an inheritance tax
does no injustice to anyCne-certain-
y not to the dead.
IS injustice done to the living?
Not unless they have some natu
!al right to the inheritance. And
they have none. AS above stated,
their right to the inheritance comes
from the state.
Some people cannot get it out of
their heads that a child, by reason
Of its own claim on its parents, has
a natural right to inherit their prop
erty Yet no one criticizes the dis
tinCtion made by the law between
legitimate and illegitimate children.
Surely if natural right entered into
the matter, the illegitimate child has
done nothing to be deprived of such
a natural right if it existed.
In some states a parent can will
all his property away from his chill
dhtn. WHAT becomes of the social
ed matt al right the'e?
Of course if the child has no nat
ural rights to an inheritance, further
Off kin have none.
These principles are universal and
recognized by all civilized states.
So the inheritance tax does not
interfere with any rights of the liv-
ing or dead.
If an inheritance is gift from
the state, it is not unjust to tax that
gift.
Let US illustrate by taking an in
stance that might and does happen
under our law, and apply the propoG-
eI inheritance tax to it:
A father with two children leaves
the whole of his property away from
them-to strangers, other relations,
Or to charity, because in his opinion
the children do not need it. He
leaves an estate of twenty thousand
dollars. Our law says to the chill
d"fn, Your father thought he had a
right to do with his property as he
pleased, but he is mistaken" The
state says how he shall dispose Of
his property after death, and the law
VIII give you half of that twenty
thousand dollars, which is five thOus |
and dollars for each of you. You are
under sixteen years of age and the
law eXempts thirty-five hundred dol
lars from the share Of each from
taxation, which leaveis fifteen hun
dred dollars on which you must pay
the inheritance tax, which is l per
cent for descendants, or say fifteen
dollars each. Is fifteen dollars io0
much to pay for the privilege of re-
~eiying five thousand dollars?
Take the case of a man dying
without making a will and leaving,
say thirty thousand dollars clear of
lis debts and charges, and leaving
widow and five children. The wild
wv IN community gets her share of
he community, fifteen thousand dol
ars, on which there is no tax, and |
Zach child three thousand dollars. fl
hey are under sixteen years the
succession will pay no tax. If any of
hem are over sixteen, such child
VIII pay ten dollars and get three
thousand dollars. There is no hard
hip in that.
Of course when you come to in
erltances by distant relatives and
trangers, the rate of taxation gets
much higher. But there is no hard.
hip in that. In the first place,
most people do, and should leave |
and secondly the gift to a
tranger, or distant relative which is
bout the same thing, is a piece of
lck-a Windfall that is worth what
costs by way of inheritance tax.
After all, the tax amendment doesI