The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1914-03-13

most disastrous and was replaced aftei
year by the act Of 1911. the Harte bill
which Ia the present law ana which the
McClelland bill aims to supplant.
Reference to the Hughes bill alone !,
SUFFICIENT to show the folly Of the legis-
lation now proposed. The Hughes bill
did exactly that which the McClel.
land bill contemplatcs. It brought
within the scope Of the state inheri-
lance tax all the intangible or personal
property OF nonresident dccedents
Within one years time its prompt con.
sequence was tho removal Of hundreds
Of millions Of dollars Of securities and
bank deposits from New York, chiefly,
Of course. from New York city. New
Jersey in particular afforded a very
convenient domicile for this fugitive
capital; and New Jersey benefited nc.
cordingly.
The Harte bill was altogether a ra.
tionsl and creditable piece Of legisla.
ton. Among other things It exempted
the intangible property Of non-residents,
and in respect to its various provisions
was on the whole a sane statute which
won wide appreciation from the discern.
ing. Moreover. It has worked we'll. 1t
has not only yielded a satisfactory rev.
enue. but the advertisement Of recovery
Of legislative sanity which the State re.
celved from the Harte bill led to large
return Of capital In the form Of cash
and securities which had emigrated o.
a result Of the Hughes bill. Also the
inflow Of outside capital which the
Hughes bill hac checked was resumed
in fill volume. These facts are test
fed to BY financial institutions which
have charge Of the funds and affairs Of
non-residents. whether citizens Of the
United States or Of foreign countries.
The McClelland bill would not only
restore the evil conditions created BY
the Hughes bill. It would make them
worse because Of the evil reputa tion
which 1t would give the State for a pol.
icy Of absolute unsettlement in dealing
with private capital. than which moth
ing in the economic world IL more SEN
sitive to unsettled political conditions
Nor Is the inclusion Of the personal
property Of non.residents within the in
heritance tax, although II 10 not SUBJ
ject to other taxation in the State. the
only vicious feature Of the pending
bill. For example. requests to religious,
charitable and educational institutions
outside the State are made taxable in
this miraculous legislative proposal.
All Of the worst features Of the bill
come. however. to the same conclusion
in the end as does the toll levied on
the bank deposits and the securities Of
non-residents. They constitute potent
factor for the expulsion Of capital or
its exclusion from New York. regard
less Of the excellent opportunities here
for its employment in the production
Of wealth and creation Of property
which would normally yield steadily
growing revenues to the State. Yet
all that can be seen in the situation
by the ONCE Of the State Comptroller,
which has framed this programme for
reversing a sound public policy, is that
the Comptroller must find some way to
raise funds for distribution by the State
and that there is superficial promise Of
increased revenue in a revision Of the
inheritance tax. II only II is made more
burdensome to the owners Of mobile
property.