we will become a debating society, and spend all our time on subjects which have nothing to do with our profession.

Therefore, sir, I move that the report be placed on file and the committee discharged.

James O. Crosby:

I second that motion.

W. B. Swaney, of Tennessee:

I do not rise to discuss the advisability or the non-advisability of an inheritance tax, but I rise for the purpose of insisting upon this committee having an appropriation for the purpose of collecting data for the use of the Association, and for the use of the law-makers of the country, so that we may have some intelligent data by which state legislatures may enact laws for the purpose of raising necessary taxes.

As far as the inheritance tax is concerned I agree with the committee, but I am not compelled to agree with the Chairman of this International Tax Association with which we are asked to co-operate. I take it that the letter of that gentleman, which is quoted in the report, is simply the expression of his individual views. We do not tie ourselves to them by approving the report, but we must recognize the fact that in nearly all of the states there is an inheritance tax. Should we not have those taxes levied along some uniform line? Take the question of taxation in our states generally. I had occasion a few years ago to consider that question in Tennessee. Our Constitution is so framed that a privilege tax can be attached to anything except the practice of law and the ownership of a dog. My brother Ingersoll raised a question as to the constitutionality of the law imposing a tax upon the right to practise law, and he succeeded in his undertaking. That made him a patriot among the lawyers of Tennessee. Then some poor fellow up in the mountains of East Tennessee raised a question as to the constitutionality of the dog tax, whether a man had the right to have as many dogs and children as he could accumulate. We had involved in this agitation chambers of commerce, business bodies throughout the state and

citizens generally. To be sure, it is a practical question, and you may say it is a political question. Indeed, everything in this country is political. We are all politicians, whether amateurs or professionals. That is what we are here for to recommend laws, and to see that they are enacted, and that we get sane laws instead of imbecile laws, and to try to carve out of these economic ideas something that will do good for us and for the American people. When we came to study the tax laws in Tennessee we found that we were working in the dark. A committee was appointed by the Chamber of Commerce in Chattanooga, and it took up the study in all its various branches. The only book at hand was Ely on Taxation in American States and Cities. We could go back to Adam Smith's book, but that is all theory. Why, talk about anything that takes money out of your pocket, and the cry at once is raised, that it is politics. Now, why not have the facts ascertained, so that when we come to draft a law on this subject that shall be applicable to the various states, the data will be before us, so that some sensible and reasonable system of taxation can be evolved. The reason why our legislatures cannot do anything on the subject is that when they meet, they are made up of a lot of raw young lawyers principally, without any knowledge of the subject, and they are guided by the Third House. That is where the protected interests always get in their work, through the ignorance of the chosen representatives of the people. What this Association should do is to get the data as to tax laws in some intelligent shape, so that they can be understood, so that the committee will know what has been done, and then set to work and try to evolve some reasonable and satisfactory system that we may all fully comprehend, and then try to have the various states adopt a uniform system.

Epaphroditus Peck, of Connecticut:

It seems to me that if there is any one thing to which this Association is committed, and most beneficially, it is the promotion of uniformity of legislation. Whatever views any of us may entertain concerning the propriety of an inheritance tax law, it is certain that such a law has been adopted by almost all of the

states; it has been adopted by the greatest of our states, and no man can question that it is a permanent part of the taxation policy of our country. It is also true that with the possible exception of divorce, and one or two other subjects, there is nothing in which the diversity of legislation is more annoying and leads to greater injustice than the diversity which exists in different jurisdictions in the way of taxing inheritances. It seems to me that an effort to promote uniformity upon those subjects is very distinctly within the line of policy that this Association has been carrying out. The committee which has reported this subject is certainly entitled from its personnel to as great respect as any committee, and it is not proper that it should be offered the discourtesy which is implied by the motion last made. I did not hear any second to the motion offered by Mr. Harriman.

James O. Crosby:

I seconded it.

Epaphroditus Peck:

If the situation is such that a motion or amendment to the motion already made is in order, I would move that the suggestion of the committee in its report be adopted, namely, that the Association authorize the committee to proceed with the work and appropriate $1000, to be drawn in two annual instalments of $500 each.

The motion was seconded.

The President:

The pending motion is that the report be received and filed and the committee discharged.

Theodore Sutro:

I rise to the point of order that such a course cannot be carried out by motion. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, as this is a standing committee.

E. A. Harriman:

Then I withdraw that part of my motion.

John C. Richberg, of Illinois:

If I understand it rightly, the original motion was to approve the report of the committee. Then that motion was amended to the effect that the report be received and filed.

The President:

And the committee discharged.

John C. Richberg:

Now, I would like to inquire whether the last motion is an amendment to the first motion, or is offered as a substitute for the original motion and the amendment which followed?

The President:

The Chair rules that it is simply the motion of the Chairman of the committee stated in another form, the motion of the Chairman of the committee having included everything suggested in the last motion.

Epaphroditus Peck:

I do not so understand it. However, if that is the Chair's understanding of the situation and of the question before the Association, I will withdraw my motion.

The President:

The report itself makes the recommendation that the motion of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Peck) suggested.

John C. Richberg:

I have no objection to the report of the committee, but I do object to the Association being placed on record as adopting not only the recommendation and appropriation of a certain sum of money, but also every suggestion made in the report, which is what the motion of the Chairman of the committee would involve.

Now, some of us may be in favor of the recommendations, and some may not be in favor of them; some may be in favor of an appropriation and others opposed to it. I do not think that the motion is a proper one on a report of this kind-to approve the report of the committee-because that would commit the Asso

ciation to everything stated in the report. The usual motion is that the report be accepted. Then the question is open for discussion, and such motions may be made upon the report as are suggested, or the question divided so that we may vote separately upon each suggestion and upon the recommended appropriation. The President:

Then, does the gentleman from Illinois move that the report be. received?

John C. Richberg:

I move as a substitute for all pending motions and amendments, that this report be received and filed, and that the recommendations therein suggested by the committee be taken up separately for action by the Association.

The substitute motion of John C. Richberg was seconded and adopted.

The President:

Now the specific recommendations of the committee are open for discussion.

Epaphroditus Peck:

I now renew the motion that I made before, namely, that the Association authorize the committee to proceed with the work outlined in its report, and that an appropriation of $1000 be made for the use of the committee, to be drawn in two annual instalments of $500 each.

The motion was seconded.

Walter A. Knight, of Ohio:

It seems to me rather a remarkable argument to present, that because there is so much difference of opinion among the members of the Association we should not act upon this matter. I never knew of any subject upon which four hundred lawyers could agree, and it is not at all remarkable if we fail to agree upon all the matters set forth in this report.

Now, the first object, as stated in the report, is that there