Inheritance Tax

INHERITANCE TAX

The time is near at hand when it will be necessary for Michigan to find other sources of revenue to meet her constantly increasing expenses than those upon which she has depended iii the past. This can readily be done, too, in the interest of equitable taxation. There are sources of revenue open to the state which have never been touched. Among these is the inheritance tax. This is not a property tax and it would lay no added burden on industry. It is a tax on the passing of property or the acquisition of property through inheritance. The right to hold property by devise is not a natural right but purely statutory. As such transference of property is made possible by legislative enactment and the beneficiary is given the right and protected in securing his inheritance by the state, it is just and right that the state shall place such restrictions on the matter as may be deemed best. The state has the same right to demand something Of the citizen for this protection that it has for any other service. A government, especially a government like ours, is supposed to return to its subjects value received for all of its exactions. On no other basis are its demands justifiable. As the right to hold property liy devise comes wholly from legislative enactment, the legislature has the right to lay a tax on its transference, to compensate it for service rendered.

A few years ago Illinois passed such a law. It was tonight in the courts, of course, but was sustained by the state supreme court and lastly by the United States supreme court. Pennsylvania has had such a law for more than 60 years. New York, Ohio, Maine, Connecticut, Delaware and California all have inheritance taxes. Michigan passed such a statute in 1883 but it was declared unconstitutional by the supreme court, on the ground that it was a specific tax, and all specific taxes must go into the primary school fund. while the law passed it to the general fund. The Graham bill now pending in the senate seeks to avoid the constitutional objections raised relative to the previous enactment. It should be enacted and the Argus calls upon the representative and senator from this district to make every effort to secure its passage.

_______________________

Recent developments in the "embalmed beef " inquiry seem to presage that General Miles has several good cards up his sleeve which like a good strategest he is saving until the last. That much of the meat sent to the soldiers was bad seems to have been pretty thoroughly established, the canned roast beef especially. From now on the issue is likely to be on the use of chemicals as preservatives of the refrigerated meat. The testimony of Sergeant Mason before the board of inquiry seems to support the position of Dr. Daily. The truth or falsity of the evidence given by Mason can readily be established, as there were other regiments stationed at the same place and drew -refrigerated beef. The identity of the agent of Armour & Co., who is alleged to have told Mason that preservaline was used on the meat ought not to be difficult to determine. It is most important that the facts in the case be determined. If there are American citizens who for profit will deliberately sell to the government meats, the use of which will endanger he lives of the soldiers in the field, hey should be discovered and unpunished. The officials who permitted such a crime to be consumated should also be discovered and dealt with. That the commanding general who made these charges will be punished, if he goes not prove his case, goes without saying.

_______________________________________

In the peace treaty is to be found a provision by which the United States undertakes to settle all claims of our citizens for indemnity on Spain 's account growing out of the war in Cuba. These claims now amount to $30,000,000 These claims are of every conceivable character, involving destruction of property, false imprisonment, loss of life, etc. Most of the large claims are by others than Americans. Those filed by Americans appear to be more reasonable in amounts. Congress will have to take some action relative to the matter before anything is done. A commission finally be appointed by congress to adjust the claims. It is said that such claims are generally settled on an average of about 50 per cent. Should that be the average basis of settlement of these claims. Uncle Sam will have to go in his strong box for $10,000,000.

_____________________

Was there ever a politiciam luckier in the enemies he has made than hizzexcellecy? Whenever his political stock begins to f all, he can always depend upon them to do some fool thing to put it up above par again. These antis monkeyed with the Atkinson bill until they saw political death staring them in the face when they hastened to hizzexcellency's side after having shied a clause into it by which they still hoped to secure a board of assessors most favorable to the tax dodging corporations. But now comes Attorney General Oren and says, and his opinion is entertained by other prominent lawyers, that as the governor appointed asessors inside of the live days limit and two of them were rejected by the senate, he now may appoint two assessors with or without the consent of the senate. In spite of the string they attached to the Atkinson bill, Pingree will have a board of assessors closely attached to his own interests and thus have the senate "immortelles" looked themselves again and placed the governor's stock on a rising market.

_________________

It is refreshing to see some of the thick and thin newspaper followers of President McKinley's extreme protectionism admitting at last that there is something in the oft repeated charge that high protective tariffs foster trusts. The excerpt below contains the tacit admission also that the republican party has resting upon it the stigma of fostering trusts. The Chicago Times-Herald speaks as follows on the subject: "The purpose of the protective tariff was to foster industries, not to protect monopolies. Most certainly it should be the duty of congress, in both branches of which the republicans have a majority, to abolish or suspend the protective duty on the products of any industry which has been organized into a trust and which has arbitrarily raised the prices of such products. No mercy or consideration should be shown to any combination of capital that takes advantage of a protective tariff to mulct American consumers. It should be the first office of the republican majority in congress to free its skirts from all responsibilty for trusts which, Tinder shelter of the tariff, exact high prices from the people. Wherever the protective tariff enhances the price of the product of a trust to the American consumer, it should be reduced or removed entirely. That is a pretty safe proposition. It's adoption will remove the stigma of fostering trusts from the republican party."