Evening Republican, Volume 59, Number 125, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 12 June 1917 — Conscription of Inheritances One Means of Meeting War Cost [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

Conscription of Inheritances One Means of Meeting War Cost

By THE RT. REV. CHARLES H. BRENT

ProtMtant Episcopal Buhop of the Philippine*

In the practical consideration of “ways and means” at the present time the question of inheritance conscript’oll should be taken up in detail. 1 ’he younger generation would be deprived of the individual wealth of their fathers, but they would be beginning their lives with equal opportunities in a country of better opportunity, not weighted down by an enormous debt and financial burden. The idea of the abolition of inheritance is not new. It has been suggested many times, to be accomplished either by the imposition of very high inheritance taxes .

or the prohibition of legacies over a certain fixed sum. lam not urging it as my solution of the present situation, but I consider it worthy of the gravest consideration. According to the charter of our liberties, all men are born free and equal. Of course, they are not all born equal. Some are allowed to start their careers with a tremendous handicap. I have, in the fairly recent past, spoken in a great many boys’ schools. For the most part the students were rich boys. And I have always taken the position that it was a most unfortunate thing for a boy to have his own checkbook, unless he had first learned to earn his own bread. In nine cases out of ten it is an evil result of inheritance. What it does is to debase the value of youth. The boy depends on his checkbook instead of himself. The idea of such abolition of large inheritance is the very antithesis of socialism. Socialism tends to decrease the freedom of the individual. The principle of making it impossible for any youth to inherit a large fortune is a principle of individualism; it would act to increase the freedom of the individual. In drawing nearer to actual equality, it would offer to the young man more opportunity of individual development and individual value. It would make the individual more important to the state because of his own innate value. It would proceed on a principle of individual democracy instead of on a principle of socialism. It would mean equality of opportunity, and that is the basis of democracy, the basis of our nation—what we are fighting for. In the present time of need it would release an immense amount of money, and free the country from a great future burden.