up in Connecticut, way off by itself, in a lonesome valley-the lonesomer the better, we thought, and we went there to live. Well-”

The quiet voice broke off suddenly, while the portly form shook with chuckles of mirth, so that the gray cat stirred a little and stretched out one sleepy paw.

"I wish you could have seen Jim and me stranded on that farm! I never knew anything so funny, half pitiful, too, though it was. All them plans and hopes, all them expectations, all that happiness-and then! You needn't ask me what was the matter. 'Twould be shorter if I was to ask you what could help being the matter. I honestly haven't the least idea what people mean by talking about the simple life in the country. In order to do any one thing, you've got to do twenty-five other things first-if you call that being simple! However, that wasn't the worst difficulty. We had caught up with our lives now, sure enough. There they were, turning around on us, coming and sitting down in the parlor, and staring at us, and saying, 'Well?' That was just it: well? What was we going to do about it, now we'd found quietness?

"Only, of course, as a matter of fact, we hadn't found quietness. Quietness seems to be something inside you; it don't have nothing to do with woods and farm-houses. My feelings made more noise them days than a whole elevated road. We felt as if we was broken off, and didn't belong anywhere any more. The world went on without us.

"We stood it just a year and a half. Yes, we stood it as long as that, because it didn't seem hardly decent to whop right around and go back on so many plans.

We was pretty ashamed and disappointed, as we sat and talked on them winter evenings, with the snow-storms howling around us like mad. We had run away from New York to be quiet, and now New York seemed the quietest place in the whole wide world. Quiet

ness-"

The good woman paused, caught in the throes of philosophy. "Quietness comes from a lot of doing all taken together, I guess. Maybe no person alone can have it. It's like a river. The more water there is, the stiller every drop rolls along, and it's only the little brook that makes such a fuss and chatter."

Again there was a spacious pause. The Spectator tickled the head of the cat thoughtfully with his finger.

"They say," his hostess pondered aloud, "that God's the quietest thing there is. Well, then, I guess it's just because he has all the lives there ever was bound up in himself."

She cast philosophy to the winds, and returned to experience.

"We sold the farm and came back to the city, and bought this little shop. And now-well, I tell you, sir—”

A slow, contented light welled up in the placid eyes as they made the loving circuit of the little room.

"We're quiet now," she concluded. There was really nothing more to be said. The Spectator understood that, and rose reluctantly.

"I wish I had a little shop," he observed involuntarily, as he tucked his package under his arm-his extravagant package!

"Oh, no, sir, not yet!" his hostess replied. And she shook her head at him.

The rushing streets sang a brave song in the Spectator's ears as he made his way home that morning. Fullness of life and fullness of being, and therefore, under their noise of much doing, fullness of uttermost peace. For peace is what life is founded on, what life aspires to. And the proof of the wide beatitude of the common quest after quietness lies in the simple tale of this woman, who, searching for her soul's ultimate treasure, found it, not in seclusion and distance, but at the heart of the world.

Now, when the Spectator is tired, he leans back on the great city around him, and the million hands of his fellow-men lift him surely into peace.

Y

EARS ago travelers passing through the mountains of New Mexico saw from the car windows painted on a boulder in huge letters the words, "LIMIT WEALTH." Like the religious mottoes which in some parts of the country, blazoned on the roadside, tell the wayfarer to "Prepare to Meet Thy God," and warn him that" Death is Sure," so this inscription flashed into the eye of the passer-by some man's conviction that a limit would yet be placed upon individual wealth. No one seemed to know the painter. Few bothered themselves to fathom his meaning. Was he crank or prophet?

On April 14, 1906, in a speech at Washington, President Roosevelt startled the country by declaring:

It is important to this people to grapple with the problem of enormous fortunes. . . . I feel that we shall ultimately have to consider the adoption of some such scheme as that of the progressive inheritance tax on all fortunes beyond a certain amount, either given in life or devised or bequeathed upon death to any individual-a tax so framed as to put it out of the power of the owner of one of these enormous fortunes to hand on more than a certain amount to any one individual.

Notwithstanding the laconic comment of a distinguished Senator who characterized the suggestion as "rank Socialism," the President has, in his annual Message, renewed his advocacy of this system of taxation. "The problem of enormous fortunes" is thus officially recognized. The handwriting on the rocks has found an interpreter at the seat of power.

Nearly all the countries of Europe have some system of "death duties." As early as 1797 Congress imposed a legacy tax, and a similar Federal tax was put into force during the war periods of 1862 and 1898. Pennsylvania enacted such a law in 1826, and such taxes now exist in many States. The rates imposed by these laws are moderate. Bequests to lineal descendants are in several States taxed one per cent., while a higher rate is imposed on gifts to collateral relatives and to strangers in blood. Bequests to charity and education are generally exempt.

These State taxes have been enacted

as revenue measures. The proposed Federal tax is advocated, not primarily for revenue, but to accomplish a sociological and economic result. It introduces into our revenue legislation the principle that a tax may be imposed, not alone for fiscal purposes, but with the definite object of dispersing property accumulated in the hands of a single

owner.

The fact that this question may soon become the subject of Congressional debate suggests a review of the arguments advanced against and for this. system of imposts. The scope of the controversy and its fundamental character are revealed at the outset when it is found that the critics of the tax-and they have been able and vigorous—take their stand upon what are alleged to be certain "natural rights."

The first contention is that the principle of the inheritance tax destroys an

nature of private property; that the right of disposition is an incident of property, and includes the power to transmit

property by descent or devise; that the State has no just power to take property from the private owner except as needed for governmental revenue; that when so taken, it is justifiable taxation; that when taken under the guise of taxation, but for the purpose of limiting the amount which may pass by descent or by will, then taxation has ceased and confiscation has begun.

It is contended that inheritance is one of the great natural and elemental rights; that, while not expressed in our Constitution, it is "a right born with our very institutions, a right which does not need to be expressed;" and it is argued that if the State may lawfully place a tax upon legacies and devises, it follows that the State has unlimited power over the property of deceased persons and "may, without any breach of natural law or denial of fundamental rights, take to itself all property."

It is protested that this is a "monstrous doctrine;" that its application would have a most baneful effect upon civilized communities; that the family relation would be severed; that whatever. bond or duty the expectancy of property places on the child would be broken; that the motive for parents to accumulate would be gone; that thrift and industry would be paralyzed; that men will not work to gather property if it has no family perpetuation; that the universal rule of the community would be, "Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." Thus the tax has been styled "an infamous measure of taxation," "a

penalty on death," "stealing from the estate by legislative authority,” “an outrage that can find precedent only in Oriental autocratic governments."

It has been eloquently argued that American society is founded upon the American home, in which the father is both the protector of and the provider for the family; that it is his right and duty to make provision for his widow and children; that our social organization is built upon the idea that a man's children and kin shall take that which he has accumulated; and that, if this principle of the succession tax be accepted, the State has a right, if it sees fit, to step into every home desolated by

death and take from wife and children every dollar of property, not even leaving the heirlooms and the homestead hallowed by family associations.

It is not claimed that such drastic laws would in any human probability be enacted, but it is insisted that this arbitrary power over inheritances ought not to be countenanced; that the evil lies in the acknowledgment of the power; that, once recognized, there is no protection against improvident and communistic legislation. It is asked whether it is possible, after all the care shown in centuries of Anglo-Saxon legislation in the effort to protect private property and individual rights, that the only thing which now stands between this country and an absolute state of Socialism is the passage of a law destroying the right of inheritance, a law which might be passed by a chance legislature carried into power upon the wave of some sudden and sporadic popular feeling.

It has been declared by no less an authority than Benjamin Harrison that the principle of the inheritance tax destroys the very foundations upon which our institutions rest. In his argument of the Illinois inheritance tax case-the last argument made by him before the Supreme Court of the United States— the ex-President pictured with solemnity and earnestness his view of the injustice and viciousness of this form of taxation:

From the dawn of history, in the earliest records, both these rights existed, the testamentary right and the right of inheritance.

These great natural and fundamental rights are both recognized; and though

neither of them is written out on tablets of stone, they are both engraved on the fleshy tablets of every man's heart. . . . The statute of descents, as the courts have again and

again said, is the expression of the legislature

upon its conscience and duty as to what is the natural law-as to what should be the naturai intention and desire of a testator. . . . The family relation and property rights have natural rights. The legislature does not give been built up and stand upon these two great them, it defines them. When they cease to be recognized as natural and fundamental rights, we shall have dissolved the basis upon which our society rests.

In the face of President Harrison's impressive plea, and of consequences as serious as these which have been predicted, it is evident that clear proof must

be offered to convince the public mind of America of the necessity, justice, and wisdom of a Federal inheritance tax. What are the arguments in its favor?

First. There is no "natural right of inheritance." The right to dispose of property by will or receive property by descent is not an inherent quality of private property. These rights are the creatures of human law. Without the aid of statutes, the right of property dies with the owner. The State has the unrestricted right to control and restrict the disposition of the property left by a deceased person within its jurisdiction. As was said by Chief Justice Taney, "If a State may deny the privilege [of inheritance] altogether, it follows that when it grants it, it may annex to the grant any conditions which it supposes to be required by its interests or its policy." In the eye of the law, all rights of inheritance depend upon express legislative enactment. "The right to take property by devise or descent is the creature of the law and not a natural right-a privilege, and therefore the authority which confers it may impose conditions upon it."

1

112

Second. Since inheritance is not a right, but a privilege granted by the State, it follows that a succession tax is not a tax on property, but on the succession; in other words, on the privilege of receiving property by will or by descent. In this aspect it is eminently proper that the beneficiary should pay for the privilege which he can enjoy only by virtue of the State and the protection of its laws. From his standpoint, inheritance is a sudden acquisition of wealth without labor. His ability to contribute to the support of the government is increased. Only where the head of a family dies who is supporting wife, children, or kin has there been an economic loss to any one. If the estate goes to collateral relatives, or even to self-supporting children, there is an accidental addition to their means, and thus a gain in their taxpaying power. What class of property can be a more fit object of taxation than that which comes to an

1 Mager vs. Grima, 49 U. S., 8 How. 493. Mr. Justice McKenna, in Magoon vs. Illinois Trust and Savings Bank, 170 U. S., 283.

individual unearned by his own labor and often undeserved by any personal merits?

Third. Succession taxes are not inherently unjust. The deep-rooted prejudice as to the sacredness of testamentary rights arises from existing laws which lead us to forget that these rights are not natural rights, nor even the consequence of the right of property. No good reason can be offered for the operation of inter-State laws which not infrequently place property in the hands of distant relatives, whose existence was scarcely known to the deceased, and who very likely had far less affection for him and real interest in his welfare than many friends, employees, and serv

ants.

Fourth. Inheritance taxes-particularly those which are progressive and place an increasing burden upon legacies as they increase in value-are no discouragement to industry and enterprise. It is not to be assumed that legislatures, because they have the power, will therefore enact laws dispossessing entirely the immediate family. Whatever may be the rates hereafter adopted, every enlightened government will suitably protect the dependent wife, children, and kindred. The passage of property, whether it be from a father to a son who is financially independent, or from an uncle to a grandnephew, or from an indulgent testator to the object of his bounty, is purely an artificial advantage in the struggle for existence. Without any exertion on his part, such beneficiary has been given a start over his fellows. In so far as the tax curtails this arbitrary advantage resting on the accident of birth, to this extent will there be an approach to the ideal of a greater equality.

Finally, the inheritance tax furnishes a plan by which to grapple with "the problem of enormous fortunes." Its advocates say that the method is wise, simple, and effective-wise, because it does not touch private property during the life of the owner, and thus places no burden upon business activity; simple, because the tax is easily ascertained and collected while estates are being administered in the Probate Court; effective,

because by the application of progressive rates any result in the direction of preventing the transmission of unduly large accumulations can be accomplished which the legislature shall from time to time deem advisable. Without some legislative regulation of this character there is no check upon the accelerating growth of wealth in the hands of the few; nothing to cause its distribution except the spirit of benevolence and the proverbial profligacy of the owners of inherited means. It is poor morality, as well as economics, to intrust the distribution of the world's wealth either to folly or philanthropy.

In this conflict of argument and opinion certain facts remain unchallenged. First, the legal power of Congress to impose a graduated inheritance tax has been sustained by the Supreme Court and is therefore not an open question. Second, progressive inheritance taxes have been tried with satisfactory results both in Australia and New Zealand, the region of experiments, and in England, the home of conservatism. With the constitutionality of the tax established and its utility tested by experience, it is clear that the question is largely one of the rates which should be fixed. Should small legacies be exempted? Should the tax be progressive? If so, what should be the scale of progression? Ought the highest rate to be five per cent, as now provided by some State laws, or fifty per cent. as was proposed by Edward Bellamy? Should the legislature adopt the views of Andrew Carnegie-reaffirmed in a recent utterance of exceptional significance and exact from every large estate "a tremendous share, a progressive share"? What tribute might the Russell Sage millions properly have paid? What part of the colossal bequest held in trust for a grandson of Marshall Field and accumulating for his benefit, or injury, might the Government wisely have appropriated to the use of its citizens?

It is in the highest degree important that any such tax should be kept within conservative bounds, but what these bounds shall be-what is fair and wise, and what is unreasonable and confiscatory-must necessarily be left to the

judgment of Congress. If it be argued against the tax that there is danger of unreasonable and radical legislation on the subject, such a contention, as was pointed out by Justice White in his scholarly and luminous decision upholding the Inheritance Tax of 1898,1 "involves in its ultimate aspect the mere assertion that free and representative government is a failure."

In dealing with the problem of concentrated wealth, the progressive inheritance tax very naturally presents itself as a partial solution. Its sponsors have for years earnestly, but with indifferent success in attracting public attention, urged its adoption as a convenient method of raising revenue and an efficient means for reducing "swollen fortunes." By the sudden appearance of the President as its champion this proposition is now receiving that degree of public consideration which it well deserves. Why should it anywhere, even among the very rich, arouse fear and amazement? Is it not rather surprising that in democratic America the unqualified moral right to inherit regal fortunes should not long since have been assailed? How absurd now appears the doctrine of the divine right of kings, rulership over one's fellow-men, vested as a thing of private property in lineage, the grave responsibilities of the crown blindly intrusted to an unborn child! Yet power resides not alone in hereditary monarchs. The ownership of ten million dollars is a power greater than possessed by many a potentate. The use or misuse of such a fortune is fraught with far-reaching consequences, moral and economic, to whole communities. and to thousands of human beings; yet without astonishment or doubt we have seen such fortunes, with all their latent possibilities of good or evil, pass to the heir-at-law, regardless of his capacity to administer the great trust. May not a future generation regard the present doctrine of unlimited inheritance in the same light with which men trained in democracy now view the transfer of the crown from the monarch to his next of kin ?

In the light of considerations such as these, the progressive inheritance tax loses its destructive and ominous aspect.

1 Knowlton vs. Moore, 178 U. S., 41.