Arizona republican., 1921-03-03
INHERITANCE TAX LAW FIGHT TAKEN lNT0 THE SENATE.
1i15le n! Important Business Dlsposed Of In Either nlouse-Another Contest on Anti-Tobacco Bill

Little business of i,,oor.o
 Is-,~,eo Of in either branch of inc n,lure yesterday. though several comnsi.ss or interest were advanced in especiarses or the whole and the day, h,, ly In the senate, was enlivened wb,os s'eral passages over measures ana nave been widely discussed in T, oot Of the legislature.
 lecs., cohtest over Inheritance tax wss .lon s in the house the day before inc transferred yesterday morning to senate. when senate bill q5 hv Mr. ra, ason, and the substitute senate bill n,t,o,nmended by the Judiciary com or s,e were taken up in the committee VI the whole.
 mere: as in the house. the conflict ,b snout the proposition to remove 1s Hs aomln1stratfon of the law from tho oIlce of the state treasurer to inc ht, tax commission. Mir. Larson's oii IS copy of the Utah law. which mas taken from the New York law. "mich also has .been adopted by Wis Sorsin and is in use in Vermont.
 The senate bill contains as amend : ments to the existing law many of inc Detter features of the Utah law, which US friends contend will make the pres snt law as effective as the Utah law in its entirety. The debate on the bill was chiefly T.ween MT. Larson and MT. Elliott
 
 -1S former attacked not only the present law. but the administration of IL ourlng the eight years of it's exist ence. In that time it had produced ne said, only little more than s96, 5000 Wniie the Utah law produces revenue at the rate of $200.000 a. month. Even Tn Vermont, where taxable wealth is less than that of Arizona, and where there are probably fewer great es- tstes, there was produced last year nearly four times as much as had been collected under the Arizona law in eight years.
 Compare Two Laws
 One could judge of the law and its reconsideration. said Mir Larson, only py the results, and the results of the operation of the Arizona law had been recorded
 Mir. Elliott said that there were other causes of the poorer comparative showing in Arizona. Here the tax on the bulk of estates is only one per cent Mir. Larson admitted that that Tact should be taken into account, but 1t could not explain the vast difference between the workings of the two laws
 MT. Elliott also said that the admin . lstration of the law in Utah was in the office of the treasurer, while MT Larson said it was administered by the state board of equalization, a matter that was left in dispute.
 Wera etate Treasurer Earhart and his chie1 deputy, George T. Erhardt The former said that on his entrance into the of- lice at the beginning of the year. he informed himself of the operations of the law and, detecting the weak places In ft. had suggested The amendments which had bee noffered in the substi- ute.
 Chairman Howe of the state tax commission spoke in favor of the transfer of the administration either by senate bill s5 or its substitute. Ht believed that the machinery of tho commission was better adjusted to tn, execution of the law than that of tn, office of the state treasurer Could be. r Neither Mir. Howe nor any of the ad Avocates of the transfer reflected upo, the efficiency of the state treasurer department but they believed tha that was not the place for the admin istration of tax collecting law.
 Motion to Adopt Carries
 In the meantime. Mir. Elliott ha, moved the adoption of the judiciar, committees report. Amendments wer offered by President Wilkinson an Mir Lines. the former exempting iron the tax bequests to state institutions and that was adopted. Mir Lines pro posed an increase of the tax by one pc cent. but that was rejected. Mir. Stod dard said he had favored the report 0 fhe judiciary committee, but he ha .hanged his mind and now would vot for the transfer of administration.
 The Elliott motion finally went to vote and was carried by 10 to s. Tn vote was not on party lines, as 1t ha