The sun., 1919-10-18

death. This contention was lost in both
the Surrogate's Court and the Appellate
Division. The next move, which the
Surrogate declares to have been incon.
sistent, was to prove that she did bust
ness" here, and although this was de
cided In favor of the estate, the Appel
late Division later ordered a new hear
ing on the point 1t Is on that rehear-
ing that the present action of the court
Is taken.
Interest Property Owners.
The surrogates findings will be Of
great interest to property owners, as he
traces the questions involved back to
ancient Rome and goes deeply into the
popular attitude on such questions. sub
jecting II generally to condemnation. He
notes the fact that "the growing judicial
tendency seems to be to allow the State
authorities the greatest latitude whether
their positions or claims against citizens
are consistent or inconsistent" and re-
marks: THAT the modern processes of
taxation are being subtly mlsapplied TO
the ends OF the soclalistic movement is
generally admitted by professional econ
omists.
Some, indeed" he comments, "uro-
fess that political and social strife has
already been declared in the regions of
taxation, and people Of property are be-
ginning to claim that taxation in aid of
social reform is clear usurpation and
unconstitutional"
On the question of whether or not Mrs.
Green did business in this state the
Surrogate cites the fact that "A rich
Roman 2,000 years ago might have
loaned and invested and reinvested her
billions of sesterces at her private cham
hAr tytt 40 ne hasn at cd
by the public authorities with the nego-
tiators and accused OF carrying on 'busi-
ness provided she had not opened
Taberna Agrentaria, or money shop.
where the public could resort for trans
actions Of their own.
NOW this" he states. "the evidence
before the New York appraiser shows
that Mr.. Green never did. She kept no
open shop or place of resort for the
public. She made no transactions but
her own. and in legal sense such trans
actions were not her business but her
private affairs, of no actual or lawful
concern to the State.
Cared for own Property.
There Is no proof" he says, ''that
she held herself out to the public as
banker or a broker or money lender.
Her business consisted of caring for
her own property. The Westminster
Company. which was Incorporated under
the laws OF New Jersey with a capital
stock of 1880 shares. of which $50 be-
longed to the decedent, was organized
for the purpose of taking over her
active Investments or those which re-
quired a frequent signing of papers. The
books OF the company show that at the
time of her death It owed her about
$26, ,0o0. 900"
This company" the court concludes,
was not an agent in transacting her
business, but a corporation transacting
It's own business of investing and rein
vesting securities"
Tho term business" the Surrogate
holds. is so ambiguous that It should
never be used In the making Of statutes /;
and he points out by way of example ::
"If master Is engaged In playing a
game his servant may reply to a visitor.
You cannot see the master now: he Is
busy the business being but a game of
whist"
To oonstrue the term to apply to such
Investments as those made by Mrs.
Green. he holds. would be perhaps to
make 1t apply to non-residents. who,
speculate in this State or who loan
money here.
The Surrogate's decision quotes from
tne Opl1llOn OF JustlCc SHediH vi Iic Ap-
pellate Division, who wrote some time
ago of the case that sums In taxes
which have hitherto been lost by the
practice OF persons who, having great
fortunes invested in capital in this
State. escape their just share of taxation
for the protection that the State affords
to their capital by maintaining a domiclle
in some other State"
Implication Not Warranted.
OF this judicial remark he says:
There was nothing in the evidence to
warrant any lmpl cation that In this
State any rich escaped taxation or that
Mrs. Green was among those who did
escape
at may be-" he remrks, that Mrs
Green selected n domicile where success
sion taxes would not molest her success
sion unduly: but that Is no reason for
subjecting her estate to a law which
was not intended to cover operations
like hers in the money centre OF the
United States. Should her succession be
condemned in this Instance. 1t would be
one OF those unfortunate errors which
the feebleness OF humanity commits on
10 hn %